Topic: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks? - page 2. (Read 1336 times)

Exactly.

Nobody cries that Linux is taken over by Microsoft.

Linux development requires money, so somebody has to fund it. It's no longer a hobby project by Linus Torvalds.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-isnt-worried-about-microsoft-taking-over-linux/

It may not be the sinister intrigue everyone's assuming it is.

The companies in question here are ones that are running some of these new Bitcoin ETFs.  The funds they are offering to the developers are derived from the profits of running those ETFs.  They may already have everything they need and they're simply offering to give something back to ensure development continues. 

If you already had a 'golden goose', you wouldn't let it starve, would you?  You'd pay just a little bit to feed the thing, so it continues to lay golden eggs.  Investing in the source of your wealth is just good business sense.

there used to be. but that went centralised to.. namely examples of "bitcoin foundation"

sidenote
github has features where people can individually donate/sponsor a dev. and many devs publish their bitcoin addresses on their own websites/social media...
but when it comes to organisations making formal deals with core devs under employment of a company/brand. then we should be scrutinising those deals openly

now with all that said.
the devs of bitcoin core that do the maintaining (not talking about the volunteers they allow to spell check/translate to appear diverse) are highly paid already.

I think that there should be 100% transparency here so the Bitcoin and crypto community are aware of the things going on and that we should be watchful. I am sure that these capitalists have their own financial interest on things they are doing, though we also have to consider that organizations can fund something without expecting something in return. I am just wondering why there is no big movement coming from Bitcoin supporters and enthusiasts to instead crowdsource the Bitcoin Core development...or has there been one already?

i call it a sponsorship because like all sponsorships they get paid set amounts if they meet goals or hit milestones
(much like those school long distance/field runs/marathons that are sponsored 50p/50c per mile run)
they only get paid if they do X things. where the activity achieved promotes/elevates/brings ROI to the businesses

unlike donations that have no conditions

even funnier is if you dare ask a blockstream, brink, chaincodelab about their income and deals they will say that its 'commercially sensitive data' and wont tell the bitcoin community.

it then gets worse when the same core devs with 'force merge' code ability are also the moderators and chairs/comity of all the main technical discussion platforms

it even gets worse when those not of core hierarchy are seen as threats to bitcoin. being called "totalitarian take-over" if releasing code, or benign(so ignore) if not releasing code.. thus never allowing non-core people to even get to propose things in idea or code format due to things like REKT campaigns and witch-hunts of treating non-core proposals as threats

when it gets to a point that core formed a hierarchy of control, power, privilege
when it gets to a point that the decentralised userbase of bitcoin should not scrutinise core
when it gets to a point that IF decentralised userbase of bitcoin should find flaws and try to highlight them, get told to shut up or be banned
when it gets to a point that the decentralised userbase of bitcoin should not ask for features because no one should freely ask anything of core
when it gets to a point that open source becomes like a newspaper.. open pages to read, but closed door to becoming a editor/reviewer of said newpaper

then things get too centralised with core being too powerful and funded by the types that dont have the best interests in bitcoiners needs

..
we SHOULD actually get back to a position where multiple full node brands work symbiotically for the network..  offering proposals for the network where by differing node brands are not treated as enemies/opposition for offering proposals. nor relegated to being treated as 'forks to altcoins'. whereby the features activate only when the network is deemed network ready by the majority(consensus) to understand, interpret and validate such new features.. unlike the current scenario that core can slide new things in without network readiness. due to the softened methods they employed

I mean isn't their shit more of a sponsorship and not necessarily similar to what the banks could offer the core devs should they resort to getting funded by fiat banks? Not really sure about that so don't quote me on it or perhaps correct me if I'm wrong lol. Plus I don't think they actively changed the code to anger the masses, they could've just changed the block size to anything other than 1 mb a la Rick and Morty style and that would've spurned a massive riot in this forum and beyond, so why bother with the small-time inconveniences?

In my opinion, there's a good discussion to be had with the idea of getting funded/supported by the fiat market. However, I don't think we'll get that support from the banks really. The thing is that they made it a point to not deal with anything that has anything to do with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. The very few banks who do so bury shit that would've exploited cryptocurrency users and quite possibly the core devs into piles and piles of paperwork and stipulations, so getting the money to keep the whole machine and system going's gonna be the short end of the stick most likely.

I'm thinking we should look elsewhere if the core devs are really that short on the money and is in need of some funding. We got crypto corporations out there that would gladly get these devs signed onto something that would keep their mouths fed for years for less stipulations than they would've gotten themselves into should they go through with bank deals.

doomads ideals are supporting other networks and only changing bitcoin to support the migration of people towards other networks of middleman control. where the danger of going agaisnt his ideals lays in breaking his other network adoption plans
much the same as the games HmmMAA a Leez currently support

im sure within 6 years doomad and HmmMAA and Leez will join forces and be best friends promoting how bitcoin should not progress for bitcoiners but should progress for other networkers priorities.. they just need to fight over whos other network should be the priority underclass network, to which they want bitcoin network to serve

both doomad(and his chums) and BSV people are happy if their centralised gods are sell-outs to their sponsors where no one should scrutinise their gods or question their morals or motives

as for me or anyone not core, thus not writing code for bitcoin network upgrade proposals.
you might want to read doomads 8 years of abusing people who dare make efforts to propose anything (most abuses are called REKT campaigns, to which all proposals not fashioned by core are deemed altcoin announcements in doomads eyes because he does not want people actually coding bitcoin upgrade proposals, unless they are the benevolent core dev hierarchy of gods).. it is a comical read that belongs in the religious philosophical comedy section of literature

I mean... they're both cancers, but I've come to realise that franky1 is largely benign.

franky1's ideals are dangerous and misguided, but no one is *implementing* those ideals.
He's all but confirmed he's never going to publish any code and isn't prepared to pay anyone to write any code.
Most developers appear to view him as a walking punchline and don't take him seriously in the slightest, so they won't write any code for him.
He's too obnoxious and demanding to work with collaboratively, and would swiftly alienate anyone who tried, so no code will be produced that way.
His personality has all the charm and appeal of a soiled undergarment, so it's unlikely he's ever going to sweet-talk anyone to write any code for him.

As such, he can't actually cause any harm.  All of the damage he could theoretically do can't actually be done.  There's no false path he can lead anyone down.  No one can lose their money listening to the unrelenting whining he does because he has no real alternative.  That's the extent of it.  All he does is make a lot of noise.  He's an annoyance, not a direct threat (which is why I've got him on ignore now).  

By comparison, HmmMAA and the other BSV supporters are a tangible threat.  Their ideals exist in the real world and can cause genuine harm.  People can legitimately lose vast sums of money from buying into their dangerous beliefs.  It's a malignant cancer that could spread if not treated.

ok now doomad is starting to sound a little too much like me... im starting to worry.

anyway, back to the topic

devs can always be free to get their own independent income to cover their real life costs. but when such incomes arrive as sponsored deals requiring certain goals related to bitcoins direction. we should scrutinise them, not treat them as untouchable gods

Let's just say Franky1 is a saint compared to HmmMAA!

You're absolutely hilarious.  Haven't laughed that hard in a while, heh.  From another topic:


"He" being Craig Scammer Wright.  If anyone has been tricked, it's you.  Maybe one day soon you'll come back to reality.  Until then, enjoy your delerium.

Actually, I'm being too charitable.  You're not stupid, you know that piece of shit fraudster isn't satoshi.  This is just another wilful deception on your part.  You're only here participating in these topics in a feeble attempt to sucker people into using your worthless clonecoin.  To call you an opportunist scumbag would be an understatement.

If there is not going to be any distortion or manipulation of the Blockchain with regards to the sponsoring or donations to Bitcoin core team by the bank who invariably happens to dislike cryptos due to it feature as a store of value then there is no issues and it's a welcome development, I hope the Bitcoin core team would be transparent enough in doing their job thus thoroughly checked and monitored by other developers, I believe it's high time the scalability issue of Blockchain is finally resolved to fast track swift transactions I think this issue if not resolve on time would make global adoption of Bitcoin as a payment gateway particularly Lightning network LN.

Well, I do not see it as you made it look here, and what I even read in the article posted was a donation, and this is fine. Well, talking about banks if that is what really happens, I don't still see the reason why we should be heating the polity, this is just unnecessary. Do you think that Bitcoin projects will be done without money involved, especially this time when Bitcoin is in the mainstream of the financial market and ETF is approved? This, of course, would have increased the cost of services, you do not think that this will just be done at the expense of individuals, groups or companies without plans, loans (if possible) and expectations for reward in some cases?

All these are being planned well before execution, and those who seek funds or receive donations know the reason why they do that, and this doesn't mean that the banks that will fund them will be part of that project, they are only offering funds and doing their business. Even if they will be a partner in it, why not? This is a business opportunity, and for banks to be involved in a crypto project is also a welcome development, and not otherwise as some of you will make it look like. If banks now say they do not want to deal with crypto projects, the same people will be the ones to talk opposition. What do you even want?

I'm just saying generally...

I would call it an appeal to sanity but i guess it's hard for you to understand . Read the circumstances that you can't call something an appeal to authority , it's not "one size fits all" .
Ostracised and considered by many ? The many that now start to understand that the 1 MB limit should be raised ? The many that are closing their channels on LN ? The many that face high fees and cry like babies that bad miners are selfish evil entities ? The LN devs that say that unfortunately L2's cannot work ?
Well guess what , these problems were mentioned years ago , but your "authority" claim back then that things will be fine . Aren't 8 years enough to understand that you have been tricked ? 

'Appeal to authority' is generally considered a logical fallacy at the best of times, but particularly when it's someone who is considered by many to be effectively ostracised from the community because of their views about blacklisting and other controversial matters.  If Hearn and Wright are your guiding luminaries, you are beyond lost.  Your circle is only going to grow smaller over time as people realise that's not the correct path to follow.

i too have not been happy with the decisions greg and his ilk peers of blocksteam have roadmapped bitcoin towards, but  it is still bitcoin

even the real satoshi announced gavin to take over as lead "chief science officer", and then the batton passed to greg maxwell as lead "chief scientists/technology of bitcoin" and so on.. even merchants and services, and even governments recognise btc as bitcoin

heck BSV is announced as something new 15 November 2018,, not 2009

even funnier BSV did not fork from bitcoin, but from BCH
there is a deviation of 2017-2018 block data that shows that BSV is not a twin sister of btc. but a daughter of BCH which is a daughter of BTC
so BSV is a grandchild of BTC not a twin of BTC

yep BSV is a offspring(fork) 2 generations below bitcoin.. BSV is not the original.. hard blockdata and code prove it

---

an example..
lets take the 20th of august block#480,000. BSV used the BCH chain data. where by block #480000 on BSV had 21 transactions which is what BCH had
BSV and BCH had 21 transactions but BTC had 2117 transactions

yep the 21 transaction of BCH/BSV following was not even 1% following.. it was literally nearly an empty block no one used, wanted

again for emphasis
BSV is a offspring(fork) 2 generations below bitcoin.. BSV is not the original.. hard blockdata and code prove it

I'll stick to Mike Hearn's opinion in his response to Greg :

Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!


Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason".

But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people. Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products only for today's tiny user base."

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009726.html

So , good luck defending Greg's coin . Goodbye and have a nice day .

Yeah I don't think that's a good idea, sure they've got the money but it's out of what Satoshi and bitcoin stands for, freedom from the traditional banking system. Remember that when this happens, these banks will surely try to put in their ideas on how bitcoin should work and should process so it's not a good idea, it will be a problem that will present itself when it's too late already.

bitcoin is not just a ticker.. you suggesting that people think bitcoin is just a ticker, reveals more about your misunderstanding of the whole economics, utility and functionality of what makes bitcoin, bitcoin

heres the thing though
even your beloved BSV leader is in court suggesting his BSV is not bitcoin.. because he wants something from BTC. thus even he thinks BTC is bitcoin because instead of just editing BSV to steal "satoshi stash" and get what he wants.. he wants BTC "satoshi stash" because he admits BTC is bitcoin
(he pretends to be bitcoin creator and pretend bitcoin was stolen from him)
also he isnt chasing after the other hundred forks.. not even BCH because he doesnt believe any of them are "bitcoin" but just airdrop altcoins

oh and time has proven BTC is bitcoin.. goodbye

I wouldn't worry that much.

People have said the same thing about Linux and Microsoft's involvement:

https://rcpmag.com/articles/2012/04/04/microsoft-credited-as-a-top-linux-kernel-contributor.aspx
https://thenextweb.com/news/in-your-face-google

Can someone honestly claim that Linux (Kernel) is compromised? Even though it's open-source?

Even if that was the case (it's not), there are still alternatives such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.

Bitcoin is not much different compared to Linux.

It's slowly becoming a viable "commercial product" (in terms of ETF offerings).

Also, BTC needs to remain decentralized to maintain its high valuation (and go even higher).

They cannot turn it into a centralized currency (CBDC) and still expect it to cost a lot.

Oh, come on, "1 CPU = 1 vote" has been long dead (ever since ASICs came out).

If you want that, better move to Monero (but I guess your BTC stash is too valuable, so you're not gonna do it).

Wanna know what's funny about HmmMAA?

He claims other people are conspiracy theorists, all while he's the biggest conspiracy theorist (he believes NSA/CIA are behind BTC/Satoshi Nakamoto and also he believes that DCG/MasterCard control the BTC Core dev team).

He's the biggest hypocrite you're gonna find on this forum.

You do not love Bitcoin (BTC), you love BSV.

You hate BTC with a passion and want to see it destroyed. Be honest for once.

Franky1 might be eccentric, but at least he doesn't love shitcoins/Bitcoin forks with tons of 51% attacks:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

You remind me of WAntilles on adslgr who claimed years ago that ARM CPUs (on iPhone) are "Fisher Price toys" compared to x86. Therefore iPhone is "DOA", it has no "future".

That didn't age well, did it? Especially considering Apple's ARM progress.

A new Raspberry has been released, with a faster ARM CPU and more RAM... maybe you should check it out.

Not only that, but he also defends Calvin Ayre's predictions:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-price-crash-zero-says-204253747.html

And you know who Calvin Ayre is, right?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn0D09YaMAQF9Uj?format=jpg&name=small
https://files.catbox.moe/ve2wtn.jpg

We've tried to explain to him many times before that the free market has decided which blockchain has the highest valuation AND hashrate, but he still doesn't get it.

He's so butthurt that he believes there's a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy organized by bad actors (forum members/BTC maxis) against BSV, "the only true Bitcoin envisioned by Satoshi".

Watch him trying to attack me, even though everything I've said can be verified by his posts on this forum.

ps: If you pay close attention to him, you'll see that he's enamored by Craig Wright and he even admits that he's a pricky personality.

Guess what? HmmMAA is equally pricky judging by his insults to other members!

Spoken like a true flat earther.

Or maybe like Calvin Ayre too:

https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1577732304440815616

Stop lying, you've confessed that you join this forum to bribe users with BSV (you send PMs to lure people into the BSV ecosystem -> that's what drug dealers do too).

There is a very famous and young member on this forum/thread that accepted BSV donations from you. Don't make me tell his name, I don't want to expose him. You know what I'm saying is 100% true.

I believe you should get BTC and store it/use it in your own personal wallet.

ETF was made for the big guys (the likes of Bill Gates etc.)