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.
Open source is a gift to mankind.
Agree. 100%.
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.
Will not debate that either. Again agreed.
In this space, it stops the Big Tech and Big Finance behaving like Big Pharma and locking away useful technology for their own profit.
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.
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?
I would expect to have multitude of tools developed if a financial reward were tied to it.
yes, start coding! Don't prevent others from doing so by posting "your thoughts" - contribute is much moreeffective. Go, go, go!
Contribute.
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?