Topic: Bitcoin’s longest-serving Lead Maintainer calls it quits, names no successor - page 3. (Read 701 times)

Wrong.  You are the lone, unhinged lunatic with a horrendous and disturbing notion of what Bitcoin supposedly ought to be (but never will be).  You perceive anyone who doesn't share your reprehensible and authoritarian views as "buddy buddy" because none of us can come close to understanding your fractured psyche and how you so consistently and unrelentingly misperceive the world and get it all twisted in your head to be some sort of sinister conspiracy.  All the while, some cautious, sensible and pragmatic developers continue to act in the best interests of the Bitcoin network/protocol, but all you can do is screech about inane nonsense you should have gotten the fuck over over 6 years ago.  Just accept that you have some very, VERY niche views that no other person on this planet is special enough in the brain to share with you.  Or just choke on your own tongue, already.  Either way, this shit's getting tiresome.



Not independent from reality, like you, no.  I like my thoughts grounded in sanity, thank you.  You should give it a try some time.



Fine.  How about you and I both shut up now and we'll run a little experiment?  

******

I freely encourage everyone reading here to look into this repository matter (assuming they aren't already familiar with it) and form an opinion on their own.  Then write here in this topic what your opinion is.  I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone other than franky1 perceives it as an issue.  Let's put it to the test and see how controversial it really is.  Thoughts, anyone?  

******

It could have a bit of a negative effect on the value once this gets more mainstream knowledge, which kind of shows a weakness that maybe hasn't been factored in properly to cryptocurrency to date. It probably effects Bitcoin much more than any other cryptocoin, but other coins will undoubtedly be affected by the knock on action of this. The continuity of the developers in the background is extremely important, even if it is a relatively stable platform, because they have vast power over the future direction of Bitcoin and can implement decisions that affect the money in everyones wallet. Much like you see in a company which loses a strong manager, it can easily start to wobble after that.

People do like to make grand claims about the smallest things, so I guess this was warranted because at least it is not a tiny thing. I mean him quitting and not naming any successor is a bad look for what he did so far, not what bitcoin did, but what he did was related to bitcoin hence it's tainted now.

But at the end of the day, bitcoin will not be going down or being disliked, most people in all of crypto do not know who Van der Laan was, it is a new information to people. I mean if you already bought so many without even knowing who he is, would you end up selling just because he quit? Of course not. So, it is not a useless information but it is not going to change anything neither.

doomad.. you and a certain few people for years have been buddy playing each other, defending each other chatting to each other kiss assing each other all for the same warped fantasy.
the same warped fantasy that harms bitcoin

there are literally thousands of people on this forum.. yet its always the same few people that share your mindset. the same that suddenly agree with everything you agree with. its not random at all.
heck your social group has become soo sheepish that its not even where a person agree's with you on one things but disagrees on so many other things. its that your social group of about a dozen (under two dozen) that agree on pretty much everything. as if they are on the same script.
whatever you want to promote a agenda or a opinion, within a few posts they pop up to back up the promotion.agenda, and then defend it even with their silly exaggerations that cannot be backed up by data

you are not original,. not having an independant thought and you obviously are in the same social group because its the same dozen people that agree with each other and defend each other in topics where there are more then a dozen that do now share your mentality. but you keep talking about 'your' community that agree with you

check your topic history. you defend the exact same dozen people and adore them for sharing your scripts and mindset.

..
anyway back to the topic that a certain person does not want publicised. yet is well documented and easy to research

the facts about history of satoshi passing the project to gavin who passed it to(drama involved) wlad. is well documented and researchable..  
guess what doomad and chums.. you might want to hide it.. but

the github repo that is now core controlled was created by gavin..(satoshi used a different code repository on a different site)
yep its a fact of history that can be found in hard data..

Translation:  Any time at least two people disagree with franky1, franky1 has to assume that one has manipulated the other against him.  It's inconceivable to franky1 that two people could independently arrive at the conclusion they disagree with franky1's "inalienable truth".  



Translation:  Only developers whom franky1 approves of should be considered for the role.



Translation:  It only counts as history if you agree with franky1's version of events (which almost certainly didn't unfold the way he claims they did, but he'll never accept that).

Bitcoin is meant to outlive Satoshi, Van der Laan, and everyone who writes code for it today. Bitcoin is a community, old people leave, new people come. So this is actually very good for Bitcoin, it will demonstrate that its development has no critical centralization, unlike Ethereum, where Vitalik is the owner of the code and can do whatever he wants.

in 2012 Wlad worked as just a coder, gavin took over from satoshi in 2011 and gavin passed it on in 2015 when the rebrand to "core" took place

gavin in 2010 said he too was only going to be involved in bitcoin for about 5 years. and so he also retired as intended and passed it too core(though core actually tried a malicious plot to defame gavin and then delete his keys(but thats another point of history certain people will refuse to acknowledge)

as for wlad his retirement was announced last year. and unrelated to the tornado fiasco as the decision to leave.

though lessons should be learned to not have bitcoin as a central point, which even core an wlad know they are central points.
we need to decentralise more so there is no reliance on one github/maintainer. especially need to avoid those in a near central point to not be funded majority by one central funder to ensure that bitcoin cannot be controlled

He doesn't have to name a successor. It's not like Satoshi chose him to work on Bitcoin. He started it on his own in 2012, long after Satoshi's disappearance
Imagine that bitcoin managed to grow in 2011 and 2012 and Satoshi left in 2010. In those 2 years van der Laan was completely out of the picture.

OP is making it sound like we just bought a car and now the only authorized garage is losing its lead mechanic. It's not how it works! Bitcoin can continue even when all of those core devs quit.

blackhatcoiner you do realise that they purposefully called it core for a reason. i know buddy doomad has indocrinated you into not openly talking about it and instead speak out the utopian. but atleast try to challenge yourself once in a while to step out of the "group think"

WLad admitted HIMSELF that he was a centralised bottleneck

whomever does become part of the release candidate maintainer. i do hope its not one of the guys paid by brink chaincodelab blockstream (funding sponsor middlemen of DGC)

i hope they decide on a outsider that can actually vet the code properly for bitcoin open networks sake and not the DGC core roadmap sake

the whole saga of tornado should be proof enough to not want a single reference client sourced from a single github repo. bitcoin needs to shed itself of single points of failure

If Bitcoin Developers and Managers have said they want to retire it doesn't mean Bitcoin will die, because Bitcoin already has many communities around the world and will not stop Bitcoin, so there is no effect if there are no Developers and Managers. But if the Developer and maintainer announces that he wants to retire, he will surely find someone he really trusts for Developers and maintainers, although it's not known to everyone yet.

Oh no again, didn't we shed a few tears for van der Laan last year when he announced that he would move his activities to the background?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58704933

In addition, last year at least two more developers gave up their work on Bitcoin, but this is no reason to panic, because there are many other smart and intelligent people who will take their places. Bitcoin was never dependent on one man, didn't Satoshi teach us anything?

Heck, though not preferable — even if there isn't a single developer for Bitcoin(the core protocol) for an entire decade or more, chances are, it would still work totally fine.

^ Can't say the same for literally any other crypto project.

This is what I like with bitcoin. Leaders abandon it. It is revealed that there's no team responsible for its reputation. It is built neutrally. Projects built on top of it are very much controlled by a group of people, with few exceptions, but the core is as decentralized as possible. And it turns out that people want to acquire something that's free of bureaucrats and corporatocrats. It is beyond human failure. Corruption, as monetary policies are concerned, ceases to exist.

Even the creator of bitcoin Satoshi left the network for many years now, and nobody knows where he is, or if he is alive, and bitcoin has remained good since then till now, and it is working just fine because it is decentralized and based on consensus, and it doesn't need the creator and or any single person to remain what it is. Van der Laan may be a big loss in the sense that a good developer just left, and that is the end of it, but if you feel it will have any other impact, or that "the joe bitcoin user" should stop using the network because of this, you are wrong.

I do not know if anybody can comprehend what pressure is on Wladimir van der Laan and the other developers to maintain the development and the security of this technology. Just imagine being the CEO of an investment firm that are securing the integrity of a financial system that hold Billions of Dollars worth of investments and deposits.  

Then think about the pressure from governments to sabotage the project and the 3 l3tter agencies that are looking for ways to topple the "head" of the people that are maintaining a system that are used to bypass sanctions against rouge countries and also loads of criminal actions.  

Thank you Wladimir van der Laan for fighting the "good" fights on our behalf. Hope your retirement are less stressful.  

That's sad to hear about that he is stepping down from the position but at some point we all have decisions to be made and it's his choice whether to carry on or not but the system won't be affected by that at all.There are many developers who are still working and many who left or died but was there any security compromise with bitcoin? No and that's how it is supposed to work in complete decentralised manner but still respect his decision.

I think you are confusing bitcoin with some of the centralized shitcoins that when the centralized authority leaves it harms that shitcoin!
There are at least a dozen good developers dedicating a large amount of time to work on bitcoin and a lot more part time developers that contribute a lot to the code and hundreds of little contributors. Not to mention multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol each having their own developers team.

Wow! Ten years. That's pretty impressive commitment from Van der Laan.

It looks like he wanted to decentralize developing ability so that less relied on a single individual.

He was starting to delegate more tasks to others since Jan 2001, according to his blog: https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

How? Is this about the old issue of centralization when it comes to merging of new code changes? Or is the problem not naming a successor?

I was just reading about the possible reasons for quitting and it looks like he's really burnt out. Whatever it is that made him leave, I don't think it's that big of a deal for the community and overall Bitcoin development. There are still few code maintainers and one of them could take the lead role. There are also hundreds of open-source developers or contributors if I am not mistaken.

Those guys at bsv are probably happy about this since the fake one also harrassed Van der Laan.

The fact that something like this could happen without causing any worry at all among regular and not-so-regular users reminds us why Bitcoin's not some mega project that'll go under when its creator disappears. satoshi's disappearance cleared that up.

(though really, when Dogecoin's devs left, the coin didn't die either, so really, we're fine)