Topic: Curse of open source - page 2. (Read 2383 times)

I think its more a function of the fact that most implementations of wallets are designed to work across both Linux/Mac and Windows. If you've ever tried to develop for all three platforms simultaneously you very quickly realise that the GUI toolkits aren't very good. The best one is Qt (the same gui as the KDE desktop I believe) but it isn't as developed as many of the native GUI toolkits because it has to work across all platforms so is only as good as the most basic platforms.

When you consider that you wouldn't even have these frameworks if it weren't for open source then you'll realise its not actually a curse

I got multiple of answers but none that I expected.

Maybe I have not expressed myself clearly.
I did not mean that open source is a curse. What I meant is that there is a huge unmet need for development of various software in the space of crypto that is not being met due to the fact that developers can not be financially incentivized because they are "forced" to do it in an open source manner.

Let me address some answers and try to convey what I was really asking.


Agree. 100%.


Will not debate that either. Again agreed.


Topic of its own. Will not go that rabbit hole. Tech is something you can try in a sandbox, I am not sure the same applies for Pharma. Open source pharma is an interesting and untried field which would presumably lead to a lot of deaths, invalidity and backlash in contrast to losing claim to digital bits in crypto space.


I would expect to have multitude of tools developed if a financial reward were tied to it.


I am sorry but I call bs on this argument.

A bit of background on me first.
I am someone who is old enough to remember things like:
5.25" floppy disks
GOSUB
GOTO commands in basic
Commodore 64 loaded from a cassette and so on.

And I have no problem buying Raspberry Pi, taking a Python course, wading through Python package nightmare installing pybitcoin libraries, reading a ton of stuff, burning Tails CDs and list goes on... only to understand properly how this stuff works.
I find it fun and rewarding.
But you can not seriously expect that every lay person jumps through the same hoops.
Time constraints, financial constraints, intellectual constraints and simply comfort constraints are all in place.

It is the same as if I told you:
You need a road transportation machine - go engineer you own car.
You do not want antibiotics in your cattle - go raise your own herd.
You are struggling between sideeffects and complications of operation A vs. operation B. Go to med school, chose that field and CONTRIBUTE to the technique and technology for that particular operation.

Division of human labour is a wonderful invention.

Even if I reached the stage of 'contributing' (not so likely) I doubt that my code will ever reach the elegance of a professional coder (not to mention security, resource need., portability etc.).
I would rather excel in my field and let coders excel in their field in exchange for a 5$ Android wallet that supports Segwit address.

I consider myself of an OK intelligence (OK defined as able to grasp most concepts with reasonable effort) and I have struggled and still am struggling with a lot of stuff in this crypto space.

Point me to how many people can really prove or explain to you why SHA-256 is safe when it comes to Bitcoin. What would it take to crack it, what processing power, is there a backdoor built in that you can not spot? I bet 99.99% of the public and 90% of math majors will never reach that stage. So you are still relying on 'authority' of others.

To summarize, what I wanted to ask is the following:
IS THERE A WAY TO KEEP SUCH IMPORTANT SOFTWARE OPEN SOURCE (to be able to vet it) WHILE STILL PROVIDING MEANINGFUL FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DEVELOPERS?

Exactly, M$ can eat a double dick sandwich.

Which means that they are exploiting open source. Which is admission of defeat. They are not exactly the pioneers. So why worship the Microsoft copy cats. When all they do is copy the open source concepts invented by the volunteers.

Microsoft has changed a lot over the past few years. Today they have "the largest number of the top 500 open source projects for any one entity" (1)... even more than Google and Redhat.

1. https://thenewstack.io/microsoft-shifting-emphasis-open-source/

If you're forked with a one-liner... so what? If that one-liner ends up improving it... why not?
The organic growth of an open source project backed by the vision (and foundational guidance) of a few initial contributors trumps any closed source project. Heck, that even sounds somewhat familiar... Bitcoin?
And after sifting through a lot of projects to find one, and if it's not exactly what you need, fork it

Studies I've seen which compared open source products like mozilla firefox to proprietary closed sourced analogues such as microsoft's internet explorer concluded open source software, on average, contain fewer software vulnerabilities with oftentimes higher levels of innovation and new features. Maybe of the "new" and "exciting" contained in closed source products like microsoft windows are things that were developed in open source software which microsoft "borrowed".

Without veering too far off track there are many open source projects which represent good quality work. Open source is where many new ideas and features are implemented.

If you're criticizing software projects associated with ethereum, it might help to remember that ETH is affiliated with microsoft, JP Morgan and other large closed source entities. The same might be said of those other things you mentioned.

One other factor is Intellectual Property or Patents.

Open Source provides the disclosure that invalidates patents.

In this space, it stops the Big Tech and Big Finance behaving like Big Pharma and locking away useful technology for their own profit.

just do some digging on what values it brought forward and you will be surprised.

Being able to fork an existing project, ie. build on it, is one of the positives of open source that drive innovation. If Bitcoin were closed source we'd never even have the plethora of alt coins and wallets in the first place. This whole ecosystem of crypto-currencies would not even exist if it weren't for open source.



None of which has anything to do with these projects being open source.

What do you expect would improve if those projects were closed source instead?



Contribute.

Linux/Android and tons of projects are open source. There is no way you could trust a distributed trestles network if you can't look at the source code. There is nothing stopping people from doing a closed source wallet, but then you won't know if it will steal your money.

If there's a curse of open source then there's also the blight of closed source.

How about being stuck with outdated, vulnerable and unsupported proprietary software with data stored in proprietary format when the developer calls it quits?

How about having to install countless programs to convert one proprietary format into another, resulting in a house of cards?

How about not knowing what the heck your closed source program is doing behind your back, peeking through your hard disks and uploading your private data to who knows where?

How about hacking groups selling zero-days for Windows and Flash to governments who use them to jail journalists and dissenting citizens?

OP, I believe you're just being paranoid. The problem you mentioned above is not yours, is it?

Part of the beauty of open source is the possibility of collaboration with other programmers, and it can only happen if they can work with and insert improvements to the code you've written.

The "risk" of being forked (if you can really call that a risk) is present only if you prove to be 'unworthy' in leading the direction of the progress of your software (i.e., you're not that good of a programmer, or your vision for your software sucks); and other, more-forward thinking programmers disagree with you and have better ideas as to the direction the software should go.

Otherwise, think of it as something you're doing to benefit the community, not something that will make you rich (since that is not a guarantee, but it sometimes does happen).

That is the mantra of Microsoft and Mac Fanboys. Open source is weak. So how about your antivirus. It is not open source but most of them even anti-malware are crappy to say the least. Nobody is even sure if they are really removing what they are suppose to remove. Nobody is bold enough to sue this fraudsters. Most microsoft oriented softwares are frauds but nobody is complaining.

yes, start coding! Don't prevent others from doing so by posting "your thoughts" - contribute is much moreeffective. Go, go, go!

There is no curse, you're just being a drama queen.

You're finding cause-effect relationship where there is none. Open source is a gift to mankind.

Usability, safety and ergonomics of most cryptocurrency products is brutally substandard compared to any other software.

The course of open source is obvious.
If you do not leave your code open source you gain no trust.
If you do you risk being forked with an one-liner, so what is the point?

That is why billion plus projects like Neo, Ether do not have a decent wallet.
That is why Neo which is supposed to be the next best thing to sliced bread displays your private key and saves it unencrypted in a file.
That is why Mycelium can not implement Segwit addresses for months under HD wallets which probably requires two lines of code.
This is why there is no decent Android bitcoin wallet and the list goes on.....

Is there a way out of this curse?