Topic: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks? - page 6. (Read 1366 times)
February 01, 2024, 05:28:47 PM
guess most people in this topic have not realised whats already occurred in the last 7 years with code edits that have affected bitcoin
February 01, 2024, 04:53:23 PM
I just read in two publications that VanEck and BitWise will be funding Core development.
https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827
There is a clear conflict of interest here. Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?
As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.
Why does it even matter? Miners choose what changes they will back up by mining it, and community chooses if they support any fork. So what kind of changes are you afraid of exactly and why and how could anyone enforce them to us?https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827
There is a clear conflict of interest here. Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?
As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.
If radical changes are coming, we see them coming from mile away and can just not accept them. Also funders are not stupid. They don't expect bitcoin to be somehow more centralized or controlled by their funding.
February 01, 2024, 04:39:11 PM
If it is only donation, nothing to worry about, but if they demand anything for their own agendas in return, I'd say it's concerning indeed.
How would you know if they asked for a favor or got their their agenda pushed to the top of the list? The problem with contributions, like campaign contributions, is that it creates a conflict of interest. No matter what the receiver of said contribution says to defend themselves the perceived influence is unavoidable.
Bitcoin needs to remain decentralized and the way that this is accomplished is making it easy for nodes to decide which version of Core they would like to run. The problem with this is that most nodes have no idea that it is their responsibility to keep Bitcoin decentralized. They install the next update blindly. This puts control in the hands a few developers and if they are funded by anyone there will be perceived favoritism. Said another way, it becomes a pay to play game like our government has become.
In my opinion Bitcoin development should be strictly volunteer. Let's not allow the most potentially transformative idea in a generation to be co-opted by anyone.
February 01, 2024, 03:48:46 PM
If it is only donation, nothing to worry about, but if they demand anything for their own agendas in return, I'd say it's concerning indeed.
February 01, 2024, 03:42:21 PM
A note for anyone who thinks it's *not* okay, make sure you put your money where your mouth is and fund/contribute yourself.
February 01, 2024, 01:33:10 PM
I can see cause for some concern. But I'd be more worried if they were conventional commercial banks. VanEck and Bitwise are more to do with asset management, brokerage, etc. Plus, they're seemingly on board with the general concept of Bitcoin and have made it a central pillar of their respective business models. If they now rely on Bitcoin, it makes sense that they'd want to contribute to its continued development. I'm confident the community are vigilant enough to notice if there were any sudden changes in approach or direction for Bitcoin development and would act according. It's a potential conflict of interests and transparency should help ensure it's only ever potential.
February 01, 2024, 01:27:24 PM
core devs have been funded by many corporations for years. DCG and others funded core devs from 2014+
why do you think most bitcoin code updates have not been to make bitcoin network use more easy, cheap, able. and instead be code exploits to annoy bitcoin network users in an aim to push people into using other middlemen required services and subnetworks
why do you think most bitcoin code updates have not been to make bitcoin network use more easy, cheap, able. and instead be code exploits to annoy bitcoin network users in an aim to push people into using other middlemen required services and subnetworks
February 01, 2024, 12:38:17 PM
I am more curious on what kinds of terms would Banks offer in return for the money they invest??
Banks are no charities, they are normal capitalists just like you and me
Banks are no charities, they are normal capitalists just like you and me
February 01, 2024, 12:31:29 PM
I just read in two publications that VanEck and BitWise will be funding Core development.
https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827
There is a clear conflict of interest here. Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?
As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.
https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827
There is a clear conflict of interest here. Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?
As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.
Jump to: