Topic: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks? - page 3. (Read 1304 times)

Yes of course because it’s will transactions safe

I totally agree with you. They aren’t the ones who even started it, we Bitcoin enthusiasts, traders, holders, etc started it by making it seem like the most valuable thing about Bitcoin is the increase in price which then becomes profitable. They are now seeing that people already carrying that ideology, for example the whole ETF thing, which they are probably supporting so it kills the idea of using it as payment. To be honest, I do not think they’ll support Bitcoin if the only perception of Bitcoin was that you’d eliminate the bank (them).

Do you think it is a benefit to Bitcoin and the community for Bitcoin to be traded as an ETF or would it be better if people used it peer-to-peer?

Financial institutions of all types are promoting bitcoin as an investment to be held by the institution giving them control of the asset and the transactions.

This is how they plan to move people away from using Bitcoin as a currency.  It is working!!

It’s safe to say that it is conflict of interest but I don’t think it matters if their intentions are clean. As far as they are not against the anonymity and be-your-own-bank idea of Bitcoin, they can find with any amount they want to. At the end of the day Bitcoin will enjoy the benefits. Also, considering that they are supporting Bitcoin, I hope their banking system allows people to trade Bitcoin else it wouldn’t make sense.

The only scam that currently exists is btc . Ot promotes as bitcoin while has nothing to do with it . Segwit , RBF , LN and more has nothing to do with bitcoin . It's the classic misunderstanding that ethereum classic is the fork . Lopp is proud that 0.06% of current's btc code is from the original satoshi code , i guess you are proud too .


I definitely don't promote they way i get how promotion works , i support both bch and bsv because they are closer to the vision satoshi had about bitcoin . Btc is just an altcoin that has nothing to do with the original and changes in code proves it . How you treat so far btc supporters back what i say .
I'm not the one that stayed on the network that has the original ticker and still think that btc is bitcoin . I went to the network that works according to how i think bitcoin should work , how bitcoin was meant to be , as an electronic cash system . You just stay in btc and complain because you think that bitcoin is just a ticker . We can both have our opinions . Time will prove who's wrong and who's right . Seems that both of us are not young so i hope we will have the time to see the result .

yep HmmMAA is promoting a scam coin

but doomad promotes a different network too.. which has flaws, bugs, and bottlenecks. which for years have not been solved..

both people are as bad as each other.. both trying to compete to offramp people away from bitcoin. both wanting to ruin bitcoin with annoyances to promote their other networks they prefer

Exactly. But my question here is why the heck do banks have to do this? Control? This is something fishy for me to be honest. Well on the other hand, giving a donation to the Bitcoin core team is  for me a very generous way of saying thank you for the job well done. Donated funds can also be used for future upgrades and improvements for sure.

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison.  If I thought you were merely a victim of the scam, I'd be more tolerant of you.  But from everything I'm seeing, you appear to be part of that scam.  And that means I'm not holding back.



You appear to be of the mistaken impression that all ideas are equal and valid.  This is not the case with BSV.  You are not on equal footing.  You do not deserve equal treatment.  This isn't a discussion where we pretend there is some semblance of validity to the malicious intentions of the criminal figurehead of your shitcoin.  The only thing your scam project and its supporters deserve is derision.  All the technical arguments have already been made.  I don't see what's left to discuss, aside from how dreadful a person you are for supporting an identity thief, their ongoing con where they prey on impressionable newbies, and the war they have declared on this community.

Why should commercial banks make a donation (for the development) of an alternative monetary system, which is potentially a “killer” of their business, even if these are banks engaged in brokerage activities?

If these donors care so much about bitcoin, then why haven’t they integrated it into their system yet?

Investors, for example, but not donors, may demand something in return. I would like to believe that the Bitcoin Core developers remain impartial and do everything only for the well-being of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is about freedom and openness, so anyone can make an impact, including financial impact. The Forbes article says that VanEck and Bitwise are planning to donate a part of ETF profits to support Bitcoin Core developers. It's a donation, as a sign of appreciation. I don't think it'll come with strings attached. If it does, developers can just reject the money. But overall, I think it's just something companies do to improve their reputation, to appear nice to potential clients.
Another reason, mentioned in the article, is that they expect that a financial reward will stimulate highly professional people to work on Bitcoin Core, I suppose. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, though, because the sentence is vague.
I don't think financial support from corporations is a problem per se. After all, since they do business with Bitcoin, it's in their best interest for Bitcoin to work properly, to be strong and safe, as bug-free as possible.

And as I've already demonstrated, miners choose to go with the "good enough" solution, rather than the ideal. It is simply not worth the effort to find the ideal solution with the given cost.

Lightning is implemented. The algorithms used are as I've already said optimized not for the cheapest, but for the cheap enough fee. It will work on even larger network, likely less accurately.

There is a variety of opinions about LN in this board, and I highly doubt we all believe it will work flawlessly. There are tradeoffs, just as with everything.

Now, who's arbitrarily using the word "centralized"?  

Bitcoin Core does not have an official donations area as far as I know. Many of the core developers are individually sponsored. So this question turns into: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core contributors to be funded by banks, and the answer to that question depends on each contributor's personal preference.

Other projects such as LN, RGB are a different story.

I agree , but mining isn't based on rapspis to work . To find an optimised solution in an NP-hard problem computational power is needed . Do you think your rapspi will be able to handle a massive amount of paths and liquidity if/when LN is implemented ? And it's not me that says it won't work , it's their devs . But still people in here claim that it will work . Should i listen to the devs or members in here ? Except if doomad is a pseudonym of some LN dev , in that case i'd like to hear his opinion . If not then what he says is pure bull crap.


https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-August/003203.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html
https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv5jyfh9gp2qnhruevrph39s2mspzfw3e9mx5avg0wenltrdjnnhgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3yamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vgq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tmnv9k8g6tkddsjummjvupzp3wd64ehu3l4gfkfm63yxqfpztkk97a8k5683p5pvphhnadtj6p2xgpax5

Edit . LN is even more centralised than mining . Have a look at how much liquidity and channels belong to the top 10 . All small players are leaving it because they know it's an unfair fight against big players , contrary to how mining works .

Transaction selection is NP-hard, but the software isn't trying to find the ideal fee; just one that is cheap enough. That's why they use variations of Dijkstra and A*, and not these algorithms per se. In LND, for instance, you can check yourself how optimized it is, comparably to a simple Dijkstra algorithm implementation: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/routing/pathfind.go#L494-L504.

But, I don't understand why you focus on routing algorithm being NP-hard, and ignore mining which is NP-hard itself. The typical way to resolve this, is just to select a "good enough solution" rather finding the ideal. This is why you can find cases of blocks which could include higher paying transactions instead. System works pretty fine after all.

Your definition of centralisation ? The problem is that you think that your node plays a significant role in the network . Well , guess what , it doesn't . Ordinals etc shows exactly that . Luke et al understand that only pool level matters , seems that you didn't get that yet . Decentralisation doesn't come from number of nodes , but from economic terms . If you try to understand how network originally worked you will come to a eureka moment at some point . Ofcourse , after 8 years of LN "development" you still can't understand that it can't work in a massive scale , so i don't expect that to happen in this life .  
 
You are great at labeling people , not a strange thing for a cult member . Any real arguments ? Even LN devs stand with my position that LN doesn't work .
Good luck with your LN trying to solve an NP hard problem .

I hope that people in here see that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal insults . But that's what bitcointalk has become , a place to earn money by writing rubbish about others and becoming a "respected" member by providing nothing . People like you and your cult have forced many really respected members to leave this place and never come back . Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

 

 

Anyone else find it a funny coincidence that the BSV user agrees with franky1?

Common goals are common, methinks.

Best of luck to anyone who thinks they can achieve global adoption of a single blockchain without utilising off-chain technology or totally centralising the entire network.  Your task is laughably implausible.

Don't forget LN , that's the trojan horse they're expecting to gain profits from . That's why all the funding from corporations to devs is headed towards the development of L2's leaving L1 out . The good thing is that they're too ignorant to understand that L2's are an impossible solution and are just burning money .

so doomad is finally admitting it.. oh wait he then backtracks to save himself
but what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority acceptance(consent) (consent of the masses=consensus) to activate new feature with/when majority readiness
but what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority rejection, stay in status quo(no change) when there was no majority readiness

this is where doomad says misinformation stuff.. lets correct it..
individuals(centralised) should not have veto power over the masses(decentralised). instead masses(decentralised) should have veto power over the individual(centralised)
anyone can code, but a individual "anyone"(centralised) should not have controlling power to override the majority masses(decentralised)

however doomad prefers centralised CORE should have absolute centralised, un-scrutinised, unrestricted, unblockable power over the network

---

the current system of "backward compatibility" is that the network has now weaker security as it does not need majority readiness to accept new features to understand/validate each bytes need to exist on the networks blockchain.. thus core can now trojan in new things unnoticed, unchecked without network majority readiness

if nodes cant decide if a bad feature core wants doesnt activate, by not agreeing(via upgrading) because they see the flaw and dont want the flaw happening. then bad things can and have happened

doomad(and his forum family ilks like blackhatcoiner) does not believe in consent of the masses(decentralisation/the use of the solution of the byzantine generals issue) nor network security. he believes in "let core do what they want good or bad".. because he believes only core should determine, run, control, manage the network protocol.. good or bad.. and no one should decentrally scrutinise them

when people start thinking only core should make the decisions, offer proposals for on network changes and core should do what they like.. its called a central point of failure risk

oh and doomad and his ilk/clan doesnt believe in "one cpu one vote"(where many cpu exist on the network).. he prefers "one core, no vote"
nothing in doomad/blackhatcoiners preferences sound anywhere close to decentralisation

so its idiots like them and their fanclub clan of treating core as gods that should not be scrutinised.. that cry to the core gods (that are also moderators) to ban people that dare scrutinise core

doomad(and his half a dozen clan that idolise centralisation) still does not want to learn why bitcoin was invented to not be like the centralised governing banking system.. all because the annoyances caused by centralisation of bitcoin, benefits the subnetwork he prefers to make people move over to and abandon using bitcoin in the process (because he wants the annoyances/issues to continue)

There's obviously some conflict of interest but it doesn't necessarily mean the works of the developers will all be done in consideration of whatever the donors have in mind, or so I hope. They're not employees of these rich companies after all. The best scenario would probably be avoiding donations from companies altogether following the path of Satoshi Nakamoto. That option would not even incite suspicions in the community. But for as long as the developers would not feel indebted to these businesses, I think they will remain independent.

Over years since 2009, many versions of Bitcoin Core has been built and deployed so what's your reasons to use very old Bitcoin Core version?

Have to know there are changes in the protocol with upgrades, hard fork and by using newest Bitcoin Core version, you will be better compatibility with other Bitcoin users or on many platforms.

Now, let's see the magic from Bitcoin.

If you have a private key, you can import it to a wallet that can be either Bitcoin Core or any wallet software compatibles with the BIP, and get access to your coins.