Topic: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks? - page 4. (Read 1306 times)

It's incredibly easy to run most older versions, provided you don't go too far back.  It's also easy to run wallet software not published by Core at all.

But, keep in mind that "supporting" changes you'd like to support is one thing, but "blocking" changes that others support is not always possible.  And this has been the case from day one.  Some people think that individuals should have some sort of veto that allows them to prevent others from doing what they want to do.  Such people will always end up disappointed in an open-source environment where anyone can code what they want.

---

The stance for some time now is that fees are entirely market-driven.  It's not something someone should arbitrarily decide.  So it's not about trying to "keep" fees lower or higher because the very act of trying to control them would be an act of centralisation.  No one individual or group is in a position to "keep" fees at any given level.

Arguing that anyone could or should make fees anything is a misguided request to make the system weaker and easier for someone to manipulate.  Bitcoin works the way it does for good reasons.  Most of the people who believe their ideas would "fix" Bitcoin (including certain people in this very thread) simply don't understand the reasons why it works like it does.

Of course not! Banks' malpractices are the main reason why Bitcoin was invented in the first place. This is nothing more than a conflict of interest. The banksters will only look what's best for them instead of what's best for the people. Luckily for us, Bitcoin is open source. If it becomes too compromised, the community can fork away and make a new chain with decentralization in mind. Or they can move to BTC clones such as BCH and BSV.

If Satoshi was alive, he wouldn't want banks to get involved in the project. Perhaps, these entities will keep on-chain fees high to force everyone to move to centralized L2 networks (eg: Lightning Network). We can't predict what will happen in the future, so lets hope for the best.

This sounds similar as to installing surveillance cameras everywhere, inside every person's house-- completely violating everyone's privacy to prevent criminality. Or at least with that excuse. I am not entirely certain, but just as I do not believe that residing in the year 1984 would eliminate criminality, I also hold the view that "banning donations" would not necessarily deter lobbying.

Please, for the love of God, put fruitloops1 on ignore. The fact that he's banned in the Dev & Tech board should tell you a lot about his technical viewpoints on Bitcoin. In general, he denies reality, derails topics, and can never have a constructive discussion with anyone.

Where is the Bitcoin that Satoshi created

Who is fighting for the Decentralized, purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash that gives people back their financial freedom and sovereignty 

Don't just accept financial servitude!!! Come on!!!

not anymore
core made things more "backward compatible" so that it doesnt require user nodes to be network reedy with uptodate ruleset and format knowledge before a network change takes effect. thus users nodes do not even have any consensus effect on if a feature activates or not

its now just down to service nodes(economic nodes) of things like exchanges/popular institutional services which want to use these features for mass customers they custodian/accept payment for.. economic nodes which can mandate mining pool nodes to comply or else have blocks rejected. as seen happening in the past.. its a game of follow the leader now
if you want your transaction, blockreward seen by x,y,z services.. stay in compliance with the services choice of upgrade

when the choice of protocol direction via node proposal selection is core vs.. core vs.. core.. is there really a choice
REKT campaigns have been done if any other brand attempted to propose upgrades, they were relegated to being treated as altcoin options should their proposals activate against the core roadmap

they already made it easier with "backward compatibility" where user nodes dont even need to upgrade when new core features upgrade.. the users nodes just blind passes the new style data as valid without actually checking.

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.

If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money.  With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.

Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.

I don't think that developing core was intended to be a money making job!

Bottom line:  If you don't want to live in a world where other people can tell you what you can or can't do with your own money, then stop trying to interfere in what others do with theirs. 

I don't agree with lobbying when it comes to politics, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to tell people that they can't make donations.  Not least because such a totalitarian approach would solve nothing in an environment when we are literally using censorship-resistant money where no one can block or reverse your transactions.  If you're going to be an authoritarian wingnut here, at least try not to sound like a complete moron about it.   

It strikes me that those who are most vocally opposed to this are expressing a desire to control things that don't belong to them.  Fortunately, such people are powerless if we ignore them.  They have no influence whatsoever on the outcome because they aren't actually involved in any way, shape or form.  They could rant for decades and achieve absolutely nothing.

if you look at the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars the bitcoin core github maintainers have fundraised in recent years.
you should be asking those entitled devs to fund their underlings that help them out

Is funny to see how that thing is built, so they can donate to who they want so they favoritize him over the others?? and btw create a manipulation climate favoritising earning over the strict conduct ?!!

This platform should be shut down!

Thanks for the response. But i don't think it's enough since,
1. You need some fiat to buy/invest on Bitcoin in first place.
2. New technology/feature usually doesn't have immediate impact on Bitcoin price.

Overall, I don't see a problem with Bitcoin developers being funded by banks. This is normal practice until banks begin to dictate their terms to developers. If this happens, it will be one of the worst things we can imagine. But banks are not the only ones who can finance Bitcoin developers. Anyone can act as a source of funding. However, it is a fact that individuals are less able to help developers. Still, the time of a good programmer is expensive, and an ordinary person does not have enough money at his disposal to feed programmers.
    Some banks are quite progressive and see potential in web3 technology.

firstly devs should be self sufficiently funded by doing what all bitcoiners do. invest in holding bitcoin.. and then devs coding bitcoin for bitcoiners benefit to get BITCOIN adoption/utility.. instead of being sponsored to edit bitcoin to be more 'other system friendly' and push people off the network

secondly
the core maintainers.. are deemed as the governing center of a monetary system. if the political whims of core devs require FIAT outside funding where devs cant even use the system they govern to make their own income. then it shows they are not interested in making bitcoin better for their own interests and befits bitcoiners.. and instead willing to be sellouts for FIAT wallstreet interests
(imagine if US treasury didnt want to control the treasury for american citizens benefit. but instead treasurers/politicians relied on yuan and made policy that benefits chinese institutional interests)

if devs cannot be self sufficient in a monetary system they have control of, which they change and edit.. they are failing themselves

im not suggesting core devs break the supply limit, add more coin and force mining pools to reward core devs . im suggesting core devs invest a sum and then make bitcoin better for bitcoiners and get their investment value to grow due to making bitcoin better for everyone.. instead of making it more annoying, softened, less easier for everyone.. but pushed to only want to operate for the benefit of institutional desires who pay them

(imagine CEO-employee's of any company invested in their own company. they would be more incentivised to make that company work better to then cause their investment to grow. instead of asking to be bailed out via other means outside the model)

By any chance, do you have better idea to fund Bitcoin Core developers? After all, direct funding is common on open source world. For example, majority change on Linux Kernel 5.10 LTS were done by people who work on certain company (which usually release closed-source software)[1]. Some even blatantly state their goal[2].

[1] https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/
[2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/google-funds-linux-kernel-developers-to-focus-exclusively-on-security

check out bitcoin cores github(the main reference client everyone follows) and then look at the list of code "maintainers" and then look at the 3 sister company united businesses.. the maintainers work for (blockstream, brink, chaincode labs)
look at the main funders of those 3 businesses. and then look at what code has been changed over the years and who its benefits the most

the information is available if you just look

case in point 2014+ blockstream was main employer(chaincodelab came second) and they wanted bitcoin code edits to get their patented sidechain and subnetwork functionality to make bitcoin compatible with their sidechain/subnetworks

case in point 2019+ brink sistered off from blockstream/chaincode to concentrate on projects and pretend to diversify the workforce.. and they wanted bitcoin code edits to get their sponsors federated/hubbed services to have features that make their offchain systems operate better whilst making bitcoin more annoying to make people move into these offchain systems

its funny to see the main funders of those bitcoin employers, and depending on the year comparing the funding to the projects the funders are involved in regarding the crypto-verse and then seeing the code edits to bitcoin effect on those projects.. and if the same code benefits real bitcoiners or those institutions

I don't understand why would anyone say that's its not okay. Core developers are working hard in contributing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is not run by a company. core developers are always supported by third party organizers like these.
no one should have any problem with that.
as you said if anyone have problem then he should donate to core developers by himself. Saying is easy but doing is hard.

funny part is you were one of the idiots trying to ban and quieten me FOR YEARS when i was highlighting the segwit exploit that would allow arbitrary data to be added.... and years later we have the ordinal bloat.. case and point proven
its on the blockchain not in my head
(look half a dozen posts back i highlighted in red as one example)


its funny how you pretend to be censorship resistant while salivating in a "ban franky" topic and ignoring posts that actually have been proven correct..


cheaper per transaction is about making bitcoin more easy and useful. inspiring more people to get involved with BITCOIN and not be sidestepped and pushed to other networks..
transaction scaling per block by de cludging the blocks and SCALING(not leaping) and other things like leaner tx and less spam.. all contribute to more tx meaning individuals pay less but the TOTAL combined fee reward for pools stays worthy

This pretty much covers it.

If you believe that, then I've got some magic beans to sell you.  It's drivel.  When halfwits like franky1 advocate for "cheaper", what they actually mean is "weaker" and "less secure".  Sometimes compromise is necessary, but compromising -everyone's- security is short-sighted.  That's why the base layer remains the most secure and then users are given the option to move to higher layers and trade a small amount of that security in exchange for cheaper fees.  

It's not about "pushing" people.  It's about choice and situational appropriateness.  It's far more prudent and responsible to have different levels of security with different fees.  That way, it can cater to all needs.  

People can go build CommunistFruitcakeCoin if they want to take a moronic one-size-fits-all approach and force everyone to give a BTC0.00001 transaction the same security as a BTC1000 transaction and never have any alternative to that.

---

And, for the record, the scrutiny provided by the community is more than sufficient to keep devs in check.  If well-informed people raise issues, they are always considered.  It's only the scrutiny of franky1 which is absolutely fucking worthless.  All his issues are in his fucked up little head.

define bitcoin developers
do you mean the bitcoin core github "maintainer" key holders employed and funded by institutions right now.. or do you still envision bitcoin devs as the 2010-2014 that were more independent and where development had less of a hierarchy of control

Well VanEck and BitWise can sponsor bitcoin core development process and the developers can also take a loan from VanEck and BitWise and do their programming and if the bitcoin core developers agree to take the offer then they can do but i believed that bitcoin community which is the developers of bitcoin have enough money to sponsor bitcoin at anytime and all time.

So they will not need anyone to sponsor their projects for them. Bitcoin developers can do alone.