no. i want an international digital monetary system that is apolitical and fair, controlled by no one, that is cheap, fast, easy and accessible by all ppl's of the world, that has a fixed supply so as to not be inflatable, that will replace gold, & that can take the human race into the next technological growth phase. there's alot of great things to look forward to. esp for our kids whom i'm esp worried for and hope to get thru the debt bubble collapse.
Ok, then please do not try to develop software. Let's leave "core devs" doing their job. Everything is going fine. :-) Eye surgery and software development are two different things.
On the face of it I'd agree. But after spending 5y in Bitcoin interacting with devs like you I've learned that code doesn't write itself. It starts with a bunch of you sitting around a table trying to figure out things like if 2% inflation in an altcoin would be better accepted by the average Joe than 1%, or if Snoor sigs will verify faster than ECDSA to improve waiting times in checkout lines, or the decision to implement p2sh so that multiple parties can split the responsibility of securing the money stored at one address; all those sound like technical problems but they really are ideological and economic beliefs based on
assumed human behavior coded into the software. Amir Taaki is one of the only devs who flat out admits this and I am thankful for his honesty.
Even this whole block size debate is based on ideology and economic belief about how human beings will react in a given situation. It's been leaking out much more lately as the Cripplecoiners have been reaching desperately for every argument they can get their hands on. Instead of them being truly technical about their arguments, they instead throw out a bunch of armchair logic without any real data as to why Bitcoin can't scale. The reality is that all of them believe they should be able to run a full node (ideology) and they believe Bitcoin should be a settlement layer (false economics). They want the code to enforce those principles so they blockade any one who disagrees with them with technical sounding FUD. There's even financial conflict of interest entering the picture.
Code doesn't write itself.
Since joining this community in March 2013, I've been surprised at this focus on "coders." In my non-bitcoin work, coders implement algorithms which result from work in physics or signal processing theory; or, the coders work on user interfaces. In other words, the coders usually implement ideas from the sciences, or work to make software more intuitive and natural for the end user.
Bitcoin is
highly interdisciplinary, sitting at a strange intersection of computer science, physics, economics and sociology. Bitcoin's code enforces ideas that take into account important insight from all of these disciplines.
The code is just the mechanism for enforcement and the coders are the mechanics. What should be shaping the future of Bitcoin are the best ideas from computer science, physics, economics and insight into human behaviour.
To view Bitcoin as strictly a "coding project" is myopic.
