Topic: How is BTC being developed? - page 2. (Read 1420 times)
Thank you for explaining the development process! I understand now how BTC is being developed and the problems with it. I find the idea that the people who are developing BTC are different personalities than the developers of Linux very interesting. I think, the personalities that a project attracts have major impact on the project's development. In BTC, we cannot separate it from our direct financial interests. But I think the more important problem is the diversity of community. As it is written in the core protocol, users have the power to decide which direction BTC will move further. Core developers take care of its technical requirements. But since the different sections of the community have very different financial interests, reaching consensus seem to be almost impossible. Will crypto's future be the eternal war of coins? I keep it possible after all.
Is there any other projects like any altcoin being developed by core team? I think if the same team and names with the same principles and professionally dedicated commitment start working on a real alternative to bitcoin, lets call it something that shows it could be trusted and as an improved bitcoin without bitcoin's flaws or weaknesses.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.
They are focussing on SegWit and the Lightning Network for now, but this can be adapted {or so I am told } to fit other Alt coins, like
LiteCoin. So we might see an improved Alt coins soon, if consensus cannot be reached that it should be included into Bitcoin. This will most
definitely close the gap between Bitcoin and these Alt coins in the future. They should listen to the users, not your own pockets.
Is there any other projects like any altcoin being developed by core team? I think if the same team and names with the same principles and professionally dedicated commitment start working on a real alternative to bitcoin, lets call it something that shows it could be trusted and as an improved bitcoin without bitcoin's flaws or weaknesses.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.
there are proposal and some of them may fix some issue for the short term, but as long as there is no consensus there is no development, we will remain with the current core
but update are still being released, recently the 13.2 version has been released, there is still more things to add to make it easy to use for the average joe
but update are still being released, recently the 13.2 version has been released, there is still more things to add to make it easy to use for the average joe
Bitcoin is developed with high security with high potential outcomes. Its been developed as an technology which further on the support from users around the world has now been used as an investment and as a currency similar to one that we use in our daily life. Right now stores accepting bitcoin is quite low and keep on counting.
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.
Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.
It's not like I'm ungrateful for their work. I understand the need to eat. I just don't think the devs working on Bitcoin see beyond their ability to use Bitcoin for wealth and peer recognition. Bitcoin just doesn't seem to attract the same kind of personalities that Linux does.
Have I missed something? I thought some of these developers were working for MIT & Blockstream to specifically work on Bitcoin? I thought they worked on Bitcoin full-time? How would investors feel, if they are moving onto other projects and not concentrating on Bitcoin? Interesting, I would like to know, what the motivations were for people to invest in Blockstream, if it was not for development of Bitcoin related projects. ^hmmmmm^
Source :> http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-startup-blockstream-raises-55-million-in-funding-round-1454518655
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.
Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.
It's not like I'm ungrateful for their work. I understand the need to eat. I just don't think the devs working on Bitcoin see beyond their ability to use Bitcoin for wealth and peer recognition. Bitcoin just doesn't seem to attract the same kind of personalities that Linux does.
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.
Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.
Core don't make anyone to trust them If you wish you can participate if you're able to create a code. Suggest something valuable. Peaple see who is professional and thrust their money and we see the growing capitalization.
Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
To my knowledge a lot of it comes from the core developers having one of the most successful wallets within the Bitcoin economy, and as they develop it they put out a new version for core and then update it that way.Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
Most of the changes are soft though, a majority of the hard/big forks end up stuck in dev hell, like segwit or whatever that other proposed method was. It's rare to see core go and just do something huge without community backing.
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.
Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.
How is BTC being developed?
Poorly and slowly.
Poorly and slowly.
Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
Most simply, when "core developers" or other developers work on new versions of the software,
due to it being a decentralized network, those changes only take effect when a majority of software
users use that specific version. You essentially vote by your preferred software choice.
If users like a proposed change, they use that version, if they do not, they do not use that version.
Over time, it is assumed a specific version will gain a sizable majority and that proposed change(s)
becomes the new protocol or new version. Again, the changes do not take effect until that specific
majority number is met and then after some additional time, becomes fully functional on the global
network.
Changes are only made, when a majority agrees to that change.
This is called Consensus and is how Bitcoin allows for changes in the protocol/code.
Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?
I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.
Jump to: