Healthy Competition for Bitcoin

I’ve been following the Bitcoin block size debate since Gavin’s 20mb block proposal. If you’re not familiar with the block size debate, this wiki article is a good start. During the debate, I’ve lost respect for quite a few of famous people. But let’s put it aside. Let’s talk about a healthy competition for Bitcoin. There should be more than one teams working on different implementation of Bitcoin Yes, both the software and the protocol. If there is only one implementation, who will have the authority to decide which features to include/exclude in Bitcoin software? Who should decide which rules applied/not applied to Bitcoin protocol? In the ideal world, there should be more than one implementations. Teams are freely to include/exclude whatever features they want. Users and miners will decide which softwares they want to run based on features set each implementation provides. And since teams are freely to code, companies can “lobby” (for example paying developers) for their desired features to be included into the software, if these features are not what everybody want. But, miners and users need to be well-informed in order to make decisions Yes, that’s why it is important to keep users/miners informed. Users/miners should be able to understand pros and cons of each features, and why they are included in each implementation. Therefore, it also important to have healthy discussion forums. Attack the implementation, not the people Remember, every developer/user/miner, regardless of their views are, is a person. We should assume they want Bitcoin to success. Respect every person even though (s)he does not share your view. If you don’t like a feature being included into the software, simply don’t run it. Let others know your view. Have a healthy discussion. Run what’s the best for you, or create a new one if you can’t find any

Goodbye Dropbox. Hello Google Drive!

Yep, that’s right. I finally made the switch from Dropbox to Google Drive. Dropbox is great. They have awesome and intuitive UI, and still the best UI among competitors so far. Their file sync process is simple but admirable. Instead of syncing the whole changed file, they only sync the difference. Reduce lots of network bandwidth and syncing time. So why the switch? Storage is the biggest issue. Even with edu accounts and lots of extra storage for completing Dropquests, my Dropbox limit is still far less than I need. 27GB is far less than 2PB (yes, 2PB) Google Drive offered. Dropbox used to have edge advantages. Now, not so much. Five years ago, Dropbox is the only choice. Fast and intuitive UI and also the syncing process. Now, Google Drive has almost everything. Camera Upload? Yes. Selective Sync? Yes. Revision? Yes. Sharing? Of course Yes. The only thing that Google Drive does not have is Fast sync. Google Drive still upload the whole modified file instead of only the difference. But my need has changed since five years ago. I used to use Dropbox for my thesis because they have revisions. Whenever I made something wrong, I can easily go to Dropbox and select the right revision to restore. Now I only used cloud storage for “storage”. I no longer need to keep revisions. Therefore, the switch is inevitable. The pace of Dropbox’s innovation. They acquired Mailbox, and killed it. They used to have a great Photo app called Carousel, but also killed it. They introduced a syncing platform for app a few years ago, but it does not directly add any value to end user experience.