Topic: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks? - page 5. (Read 1304 times)

they already became financially biased/decisive/swayed

there was nothing wrong when devs were independant and were listening to the bitcoin community and doing things that benefitted the bitcoin community, where they would get rewarded indivividually for helping bitcoin do whats best for bitcoiners

its actually a bad idea when core devs formed their own business and seeked private funding(blockstream)
(and then they created sister companies, brinks and chaincode labs to appear diversified(yet still all in agreement to the "core roadmap"))
where the main github 'maintainer' 'merge' key holders are employed by the same group and have set employment policy and oversight/management/responsibility of different parts of the protocol. where by they self 'force-merge' in their own edits without wide review/scrutiny of independently minded other people(outsiders of their group)
heck, the very same core devs are also the moderators of all the main communication levels of technical,development discussion, moderating out any scrutiny, objections to their actions

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

Think about it.  You worked out of passion for free and all of a sudden an institution is funding you thousands a month to do the same work.  You will become biased inevitably and you will work knowing that is life changing money you are receiving.

Getting used to earning thousands for your work is harder to let go.

Anyway.  What do you really think happens when a Bank who hates Decentralization funds the developers of a Decentralized project?  Could it be that it may influence the developers into implementing more useless coding out of fear of a crack down or out of fear of Banks possibly choosing other much less Decentralization focused developers to fund?  There are a lot of things that may go wrong.  Money changes people.  Keep that in mind.

since 2017. it does not matter what version people use (research "backward compatibility" which literally softened the need of usernode consensus)
and completely funny how you said version of... core

a. core chose the name as it means centeralpoint of failure
b. core is core is core. your not offering other options, of node brands that are community driven to offer upgrade proposals
(because cores maskots, sponsors and fans REKT any other brand of node that wanted to propose any changes to the protocol. thus making core the single reference client for changes to the network. and thus controllers)

since 2017 it doesnt matter if you dont upgrade. core can slide in new things without the need of majority consent(consensus).. they call this trick "backward compatibility"
want proof..?? can you remember any mass community consensus event for taproot? nope, didnt happen and now you know why



funny part is i was making fun out of the core devs by calling out on all the broken promises
first butting of heads was when i called them out of their changes from 2016 which i highlight here.. (and 8 years later look at the ordinals junk)

then we butted heads about the broken promises of extra transactions per blocks that didnt happen (no 2x-4x tx count)

the core devs do not want to do things the community want for bitcoin..
read all their big feature additions (PSBT, Taproot, fee bump, etc etc) and see who benefits from it the most. (hint middlemen groups on subnetworks)


and its actually idiots like doomad that say core devs should not be asked to do things for the community and are instead should do things they are paid to do or want to do themselves for their own internal reasons. basically doomad adores core devs being the unscrutinised gods of bitcoin with not responsibility of care to real bitcoiner community and he adores commercialising. he loves the idea of recruiting people away from bitcoin and moving them to other systems,.. just read his post history..(he prefers people to use lightning, even when lightning is proven to be buggy, flawed centralised and not what bitcoin was made for). doomad also does not believe in consent of the masses(consensus) his buzzword for his dis-consent is "permissionless"

as for all of my stuff i can back up what i say happened in the past, about softening the network security, less requirement of usernode consensus,  changing the protocol/policies causing all the annoyances, because code and blockdata exist to prove it all. doomads opinions are jsut based on quotes from his favoured clan of people that think like him.
doomad just hates that i dont treat core as gods

I think this might just be the eye opener to what’s been the case and what’s likely to be the interest in the event of this development for a likely possibility. I have never really take a peep in this but, it’s unlikely that anything would be done without some interest and with the banks and other corporations looking to benefit from the trend that have continued over the years and keeps getting bigger and bigger, this be a huge window of opportunity for them to drop a taproot and milk the system.

More so, this is coming in a time when Bitcoin is expected to doing some numbers. It’s just some means to utilize presented opportunities.

You are absolutely right.  When it comes down to it the people have control.  If we start using it as a currency then Bitcoin is a currency.  From that perspective we can only blame ourselves but most people are uneducated about Bitcoin and believe what they hear and see on the television and Internet.  This means that the majority will act based on what the media(banks) tell them to think. Example: Bitcoin is used by criminals, Bitcoin is unsafe, Buy an ETF because it is simple and you get exposure to Bitcoin, only scammers like SBF are involved in crypto...

The message put out by the media is what the masses tend to adopt and if the institutions control the media and the code what hope does it have?

The worry is that if companies like VanEck and BitWise fund Core development, they might push for changes that suit their interests, messing with Bitcoin's decentralized vibe. Satoshi avoided money to keep things neutral. Striking a balance between funding and code integrity is key for Bitcoin's success and theres still a lot to discover

I thought we were talking about a currency, not an asset! 
This is not about investors!
This is about people right here on bitcointalk outright refusing to use Bitcoin as a currency because it will waste their get rich by doing nothing chances!
And all this thing makes zero sense since you could simply buy a $100 shoe with Bitcoin and then use your $100 to buy back Bitcoins, promoting usage and promoting adoption, it's not like you pay those satoshi and are forever gone, but good luck trying to change that mindset.

https://decrypt.co/214834/sharp-decline-in-crypto-payments-puts-el-salvadors-bitcoin-adoption-in-question

So, who's the enemy against adoption, the government, banks, or the person looking back from the mirror?

They will have to sell bitcoins to have cash but how much they will sell from total bitcoins they have will be different by investors. Investors who have strong finance and good finance management, will don't need to sell bitcoin because need of money to use. They already reserve cash to use without need to sell bitcoin.

With small investors who can bet all in bitcoin, they have bad capital, financial management and they will have to sell bitcoin even before a halving. Sometimes they have sudden need of cash and can not hold their bitcoin.

Have good financial and capital management will hep us to maximize our chance to get profit.

SHA-2 was developed by the NSA
TOR was created by the NRL, a branch of the US Navy!
I don't see anyone criticizing their usage in both bitcoin and when used to protect your privacy.

So, what conflict of interest you're talking about here?


Yeah, and how is that working?
Cause I see governments legalizing's Bitcoin everywhere but when I ask bitcoiners if they want to use it as a currency 99% of the responses are "My previous, why spend it, it can be 10000% after the halving, it's stupid to spend this investment, my precious, give it to me". 

Bitcoin core development could be funded by any body that has the resources and means to. As long as the highlighted word is Bitcoin, perhaps the development would be to some degree of benefit hence why they fund it.
The benefits of course is there, else why fund it?
With the halving expected, and the ETF approved already, mixers became banned and we are still to expect further changes in coming days, both as concerns its price, the network it runs on, the miners fees, network fees and in other areas where much may be gained from.

He might have a high rank, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should trust what he says.  I have that particular user on ignore because he constantly spouts tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense.  His version of events will likely be exaggerated at best and outright lies at worst.  He has a long-standing vendetta against developers after they made fun of him.  It's all a bit petty and feeble, really.



That user has an irrational hatred for off-chain transactions.  He claims devs are "crippling" the base protocol and "forcing" users into layer 2.  It's absurd.  He's just a sad little lunatic who has completely lost touch with reality.  He is incapable of being objective or rational when it comes to anything off-chain.  

Even without influence to core team, they still have more than enough btc to manipulate market via trades and more than enough attention to them to manipulate market via news

Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin without any donation from banks.
Early Bitcoin developers did not need cash donation to develop Bitcoin Core.

There is a donation website for Bitcoin developers and they accept Bitcoin, on-chain or through Lightning Network.
https://bitcoindevlist.com/

bitcoin is not some self code creating AI.
so when core devs changed the code(softened the rules of new opcodes) to allow validation bypass bloat data.. core done it
so when core devs (as the main software of network)changed the code to allow fee bumps of 5sat instead of 1 sat.. core done it
so when core devs and their sponsors(NYA) mandated changes, not requiring user node consensus.. core done it

now read up on all the core features added in last many years.. and see if they helped majority of bitcoins use bitcoin on the bitcoin network to have an easier cheaper less annoying time on the bitcoin network to make simple lean transactions and able to make alot more transactions per megabyte multiplier(EG 4x block =4x tx count).. or not.. hint: hmm nope
read the code look at the economic utility. and see if cores edits to protocol and softening of rules have helped BITCOINERS be BITCOINERS or has it just helped cause bitcoiners to be swayed into becoming users of other systems which mostly rely on middlemen due to annoyances

In what way the institutions make Bitcoin annoying to use? is there a site that show who make the most transactions everyday? I never heard it. To me, it's more like a conspiracy, it's not the institutions make Bitcoin fee become high, but most people don't mind to become a product.

Big companies are funding open source projects that they are using all the time, sometimes they even hire the devs as consultants or to make some custom modifications for their use cases. Why should it be different with Bitcoin? If big companies that participate in Bitcoin ecosystem want to stimulate Bitcoin development, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to throw accusations, you'd better back them with proof that there are actually development decisions being made that benefit those companies as the result of donations.

institutions know they cannot get middlemen commission from the network itself (unless they run mining equipment)
so they want to make bitcoin annoying to use so that people revert to using centralised services and subnetworks that involve middlemen

they first offer the "free" "fast" option to gain adoption. and say they can peg their units and allow easy access
then they start making the base asset expensive to exit to lock people in long term, so they can then increase their own units cost per payment, nd where users are left unable to settle their accumulations so instead spend down their value until its gone, where the institution then gets to settle to their side

its not a new concept, its been done forever in trad-fi, eventually they then start changing the pegs once they know they have people locked into their payment system due to the cost of escaping their payment system is more annoying

---

just look at the dev groups making these subnetworks and look at who sponsors them.. then look at the core devs who concentrate on bitcoin edits to be more communicative with subnetworks and look at their sponsors

also look at the devs that make bitcoin more annoying and look at their sponsors.

When there was news about BlackRock’s or which other stock investment companies' bitcoin ETF was recently approved, I can't recall which of them made that statement where it was stated that either 5% or 10% of their profit will be donated to bitcoin core developers. Out of curiosity, I asked a question about what they would want to benefit from such a statement.
 
But I was made to understand that there is little to nothing that they can influence on bitcoin, as the majority of any change on the network is being done by voting, and if the majority doesn't support any decision, then it's going nowhere. So if there is anyone who wants to make a generous donation to the network, let them do it, as the funds will go a long way towards the development team.

Some funders absolutely want to control the direction of Bitcoin.  To start, Banks and governments will fight to prevent its use as a currency or they will co-opt it to more completely control the movement of money.

This community should do everything it can to develop Bitcoin for it's intended purpose - a "purely peer-to-peer electronic form of cash".

A diverse group of node operators, or better yet, everyone who uses Bitcoin as "electronic cash" should have a say in how Bitcoin is changed.

The internet is an edge network and Bitcoin was designed to take advantage of that by pushing the decisions out to the nodes.  In a perfect world most people who transact in Bitcoin would have their own node and have a say in its development.

If you want the people and institutions with lots of money to dictate Bitcoin's future then by all means allow the core developers to accept donations from them.

Senior man, we are keen to learning, please go ahead in telling us more regarding what happened, personally I know that not everything happening are visible to us, but those within or close to the circle could tell more and better.