Topic: Coinbase sponsors two Bitcoin developers! - page 2. (Read 869 times)

I meant "to be considered as acceptable" and be merged, then activated.

For instance a Core developer funded by Coinbase, suddenly authored a proposal for developing sharding in Bitcoin.

I wouldn't say it could be "brought down".  Bitcoin is far too resilient for that.  But certain aspects could be weakened.  If Bitcoin is designed to be neutral and apolitical, it's best if external influence is kept to an absolute minimum.

In short, there's no reason to panic.  I certainly don't think these companies have a level of influence that would allow anything dangerous or malicious.  My instinct is that such companies will naturally be looking at ways to "stay ahead of the game" and it would reflect poorly on Bitcoin if they were seen to be abusing their position as sponsors in achieving that goal.

Not a major concern, but a concern nonetheless.

I am with you completely stompix. Now that I have read more about what's happening here I feel very much concerned. We shall not be naive as we all know that money can be used as a powerful leverage.
I will be long gone before I will read on Coinbase site the following motto:
Bitcoin development - proudly sponsored by Coinbase

Linux development story 2.0 in the making, if you know what I mean 

Yes, the BIP system fragile, and the community stupid.

I believe every cynic about Coinbase's move didn't truly consider the process of how proposals are merged. I believe Core developers, among themselves, sometimes couldn't agree what's "BIPable".

many people actually made a lot of fuss about it for a long time. but all of it was buried under other more important drama called "scaling debate" so it went unnoticed. in some cases it was simply ignored because those who were making the fuss were also proposing bigger block size so that part of their argument were ignored because the "block size" dominated the disagreement.

essentially this is one of the reasons used by those who argue about the need to have independent alternative implementation of the protocol (other full nodes eg in another language written by entirely different developers).
so far the arguments against this is greater (they argue that it causes more problems than it solves).

Too late, unless the one taking the money is Satoshi he will probably be impaled with a sha512 stake and burned in the fire of 100 antminers.

Besides all drama, all the motifs, all the schemes, all the conspiracies, I have a genuine question, which from my point of view is quite logical in this situation.
If a company, which is not one of the most influential even in its own country, can with a pathetic $100k or $200k sabotage or bend the bitcoin code to fit its own agenda, doesn't it mean the current system is way to fragile?
@Royse777 I understood what you were trying to say, but let's actually take it from those words, would you guys entrust the economy of the world, all your relative's savings and business to a code that can be easily modified by somebody who just throws 100, 200 hell even 500k at the right person? If this indeed happens, (which I find it pretty hard to believe) it simply means that we humans can destroy everything and turn everything good into shit, so what would be the point of defending something as vulnerable and easy to abuse as our current system is abused by banks and governments?

As I said about numerous projects in the past, if bitcoin can be brought down by such a tiny amount, then there are serious flaws with it.
If it can't, why even bother about what a company can do? I see it as either black or white at this point.

Bitcoin follows BIP, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0001


The process is public, and transparent. Do you believe Coinbase could co-opt some of the Core developers, and manipulate the community to accept a Coinbase-BIP? Then the BIP system failed, what would be a better process to replace BIP?

It's not the developers we should be suspicious of, but the source of the money.  Let's not turn it into a witch-hunt.  But say there's a noticeable change in a particular dev's priorities after they start getting paid, then reasonable questions should be asked.  Was that their own idea or did someone lead them to that conclusion?  Whenever money comes into the equation, it's important to ask if someone is attempting to buy influence.  



It might not be as overt as a simple one-time instruction.  Look up "nudge theory".  It could be something subtle that happens gradually over time.  



Consensus arguments aside, they're certainly the ones who will ultimately be making sure that we aren't inadvertently handing any companies an advantage over their competitors.  I can imagine it's not always the easiest thing to spot, though.  What might seem like a completely innocuous inclusion in the code, could be the missing piece for something a company has been quietly building for years.

Again, Coinbase will not sponsor semi-active people who are just looking to make quick money, the people they are looking for must be already be full-time working with a large project. That means, if Coinbase suddenly revoke their sponsorship, these developers aren't going to quit working just because no one's paying them.

I don't understand how people still think that Coinbase can tell independent open-source developers at the other site of the world what to do, like what medium are they going to send the orders with? Zoom, email, phone call? Who at the company will be giving orders? Like I said earlier, nobody there is recognized as the developers' legal employer. They also can't make them sign NDAs to stop them from calling out Coinbase. Are we suddenly going to distrust the selected developers and hold them with suspicion just because they received the sponsorship?

OTOH, sponsorships will actually encourage more people to contribute, as now they can make a living. You need to understand, that many open source developers are not employed and are contributing for free. Too many open source projects dried up because their maintainers needed to get a job to sustain themselves and then ran out of free time to continue maintaining.

Let's just say, Coinbase has some rouges in there, but we also cannot say the company only makes negative things. I just felt the urge to explain this.

 
Core developers have the final say of what goes into bitcoin, and the majority of them will likely not take any sponsorship.

I don't have to trust any developers even if they are sponsored from Coinbase, Blockstream or any other company.
Or maybe Blockstream is good and Coinbase is bad?
If developers don't have the spine and blindly follow directives from companies than they will not survive for long, and they will quit as soon as money stops coming from sponsors. Simple.

My reasoning has always worked on the fundamental assumption that decentralised governance negates the potential for lobbying and corruption.  Based on what we've seen so far, I'm not overly concerned.  The consensus mechanism is clearly robust in terms of preventing undue influence.  Plus, it's obviously not the first time we've seen sponsored devs.  MIT, Chaincode, Blockstream, etc are already doing it.  No one has really made that big of a fuss about it until this point. 

But I suppose it's only sensible to ask if there's a small potential for sponsorship to be the first step towards introducing lobbying to Bitcoin?  Say, hypothetically, if all the various sponsors got together behind closed doors and tried to do a deal to steer development in a particular direction, is there any danger of that being successful?  And if so, would more sponsorship increase the potential for abuse?

Exactly. The duplicate input vulnerability accidentally introduced in version 0.14.0 existed for well over a year before it was picked up and patched in version 0.16.2. There are hundreds of different ways that a seemingly innocuous piece of code can break things or introduce new bugs or vulnerabilities, which may not be immediately obvious and could get merged with the main branch.

Although, as I said above, I think it is incredibly unlikely Coinbase are going to try to implement a bug or vulnerability they can take advantage of - when such an issue is discovered, they would lose a significant proportion of their income. Far more likely is that they will try to influence the general direction of bitcoin, just as they have previously with their support of every stupid idea such as Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and SegWit2X.

The idea is not to put malicious code in the network. I doubt Coinbase would try something so silly.

But Coinbase, or any other company who makes money with bitcoin, could manipulate their employers ("core developers") to create codes which would benefit coinbase.

Or give coinbase an advantage over other companies. Or make exchanges more profitable than they are now.

It is hard to tell now what they are planning and how would they achieve any gain, but they certainly could try.


This is an example of something they already tried to do, and they could do something similar in the future again.

Coinbase is a company. They are not compromised with bitcoin decentralization, free web, privacy, etc. They just want to take the most money (USD) as possible out of it.

Why would Coinbase sponsor CORE DEVELOPERS to put malicious code to the network that enriches them? That would be very stupid and laughable.

I surely wasn't expecting obvious malicious lines, but I suppose these are peer-reviewed before being pushed to the public. If someone has the intention to insert something malicious into Bitcoin's codelines, they're probably going to do it at one point whether Coinbase bribes them or not - or maybe they've already done it.

As @stompix says, they'd be just as guilty as Coinbase for taking the sponsorship. While the company might possibly want to change BTC their way, they basically just offered traitors a bait .. and someone would've done this instead of them at one point anyway (maybe Binance, as it seems like they're trying to become the Google of crypto?). If I was a BTC dev, I wouldn't take money from Coinbase unless I knew I'd agree to some stuff others wouldn't.

There's a process in Bitcoin development that would mitigate co-opting the Core developers and Bitcoin development. People who want to submit a BIP starts with publishing the proposal in the Bitcoin development mailing list.

Plus the Core developers have been criticized to be very conservative that I believe there is no actual worry about extreme changes in the network.

My presumption is that Coinbase will essentially make it someone's job to work on the bitcoin protocol. This is instead of the person working on a bitcoin related project in their free time. I would expect the amount would be in line with that of a software engineer working at a midsize company, low to mid six figures in USD.

In bitcoin's early days, the developers would typically be early adopters who were working to make bitcoin better that would lead to their coin being more useful/valueable. Over time, early adopter devs will find other interests, and there wont be other devs who have the same incentives to work on the bitcoin protocol and/or client.

Coinbase, like other bitcoin companies/exchanges, rely on bitcon's development. It is ultimately up to the usebase to accept any chances/upgrades to the bitcoin protocol, so if coinbase attaches strings involving adding insanity to the bitcoin protocol and/or client, they will be rejected, and the money CB spends will go to waste.

malicious code is not as obvious as you may think. it is not like you would see a line on the code saying
for example if you look at the P2P protocol you can see there were many weaknesses in it, some of which could help another malicious node connected to you to find out a lot about your node (like figuring out addresses that belonged to you). not saying they were maliciously put there but the point is that it is not that hard to introduce this kind of "backdoors" in the protocol without them being noticed easily. the more complicated the protocol gets the harder it would be to detect them too.
2017 also proved that many people in bitcoin world do have malicious intents.

Ops! I did not have all those thoughts in mind when I said it. I meant bitcoin is a hope for us to be free from the centralized currency system. A group of people are controlling the entire economy of the world. They can produce as much as they can, their main raw materials that needs to make is papers.

If you print then it's legal but if I print then it's illegal. Weird! Isn't it?

The announcement is too short and too vague for such an important^* event!
Like: how much money they will pour into this fund?
         how much the grants will be worth?
         where will that money come from? I won't be surprised if they will ask for donations since they called it "crypto community fund"  

^* not because it came from coinbase but because bitcoin core devs are concerned.