The devs need to do their job, they don't have time for the economy, and they are not competent in it (also whales often suck at coding, like me).
I for example am competent at both. You were just lucky that I had been too sick to code.
Whales are the wealthy and well-connected businessmen that make things happen.
They were wealthy, and put the required BTC200 and now own Monero. If you are dev-rich, you don't have other wealth and are not a "whale".
Your model of the hackerdom, crypto-currency, the knowledge age, the future, and investing in decentralized technology is fundamental flawed.
Precisely Bitcoin and Monero are rich boy clubs and this is why they are going no where. It doesn't matter if Paypal accepts Bitcoin because users who are not investors (e.g. especially females and the billions of impoverished) have no incentive to convert from their unit-of-account (dollars) to BTC just to pay for something. They might as well just fund their Paypal transactions with their credit card or bank account. Bitcoin will not become the unit-of-account without the blessing of the government, because it has no distribution scale. Bitcoin and Monero are driven by investors, not by users. They are investment pumps, not currencies. Perhaps all of the crypto-currencies to date have been investment pumps. Perhaps BBR and James are experimenting to create features and try to discover what will drive user adoption. I am not saying they will succeed, because I am not following their work.
Lazy capital that wants to smoke a cigar while instructing the busy-bee worker devs doesn't build a damn thing. Here follows my canonical references. Ignore them at your peril. This is will be my final warning. I am doing this as a service to you and to try to earn the donation you made to me. A true friend is one who speaks up when he thinks you are wrong.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3514 (Those who can’t build, talk— Eric Raymond, the creator of open source)
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html#FinanceabilityofKnowledge (2010)
Quote from: shelby
Financeability of Knowledge
As explained in the “Economy of Knowledge” and “Energy of Knowledge” sections, knowledge doesn't exist now if it isn't dynamically adaptable in the future. The only systems in nature which can do this, are those that are composed of autonomous agents without top-down control, e.g. ant colonies, the neurons and synapses of the human brain, free markets, and unregulated social networks.
Due to aggregating and concentrating capital via an interest rate, as opposed to dispersing and scattering capital, finance mathematically must over time reduce the quantity of autonomous decisions (at least decisions about who receives funding to produce). Thus if financing were the predominant long-term trend, knowledge could not be.
The more potential energy in the knowledge capital, the more priceless it is sell its future. There are knowledge producers such as the creator of the open-source software movement, who absolutely refuse to work at any price where they don't have sufficient ownership of their knowledge, so as to prevent limitations of its potential future use. Due to the transactional cost Theory of the Firm which provides for the economic existence of the corporation, corporate capital accumulates by defending or increasing the transactional cost between otherwise autonomous knowledge producing actors. Thus increasing corporate control of knowledge is the antithesis of increasing knowledge. Knowledge can only increase by increasing the autonomy of the knowledge producing actors. This tension is depicted graphically.
Thus, finance and corporations are inherently ownership centralization paradigms. Whereas, knowledge ownership can not be centralized without destroying it.
For example, if a corporation purchased a huge library of software modules or books, written by different authors, the managers could create nothing with this without the authors (or others) who are knowledgeable of these modules or books. If these authors were not already organically interacting, then they would not be able to at any price, unless there was interoperability knowledge potential enumerated by some knowledgeable person(s). Thus always the knowledge is owned by the knowledge producers. When a knowledge producer is gone, the knowledge previously produced is destroyed, if it was not adopted by another sufficiently knowledgeable producer.
The Inverse Commons explains that unlike sharing of hard resources, the sharing of knowledge increases the value of the shared knowledge. Current knowledge becomes more valuable as it gains more future potential uses, and only autonomous knowledge actors can maximize diverse use cases of interoperability.
Software has minimal financing requirements, e.g. one or two humans with computers can write software that launches a $millions start-up. I did this once or twice by myself with no employees (e.g. CoolPage.com by 2001 if in Shadowstats inflation-adjusted dollars).
As explained in the “Economy of Knowledge” and “Energy of Knowledge” sections, knowledge doesn't exist now if it isn't dynamically adaptable in the future. The only systems in nature which can do this, are those that are composed of autonomous agents without top-down control, e.g. ant colonies, the neurons and synapses of the human brain, free markets, and unregulated social networks.
Due to aggregating and concentrating capital via an interest rate, as opposed to dispersing and scattering capital, finance mathematically must over time reduce the quantity of autonomous decisions (at least decisions about who receives funding to produce). Thus if financing were the predominant long-term trend, knowledge could not be.
The more potential energy in the knowledge capital, the more priceless it is sell its future. There are knowledge producers such as the creator of the open-source software movement, who absolutely refuse to work at any price where they don't have sufficient ownership of their knowledge, so as to prevent limitations of its potential future use. Due to the transactional cost Theory of the Firm which provides for the economic existence of the corporation, corporate capital accumulates by defending or increasing the transactional cost between otherwise autonomous knowledge producing actors. Thus increasing corporate control of knowledge is the antithesis of increasing knowledge. Knowledge can only increase by increasing the autonomy of the knowledge producing actors. This tension is depicted graphically.
Thus, finance and corporations are inherently ownership centralization paradigms. Whereas, knowledge ownership can not be centralized without destroying it.
For example, if a corporation purchased a huge library of software modules or books, written by different authors, the managers could create nothing with this without the authors (or others) who are knowledgeable of these modules or books. If these authors were not already organically interacting, then they would not be able to at any price, unless there was interoperability knowledge potential enumerated by some knowledgeable person(s). Thus always the knowledge is owned by the knowledge producers. When a knowledge producer is gone, the knowledge previously produced is destroyed, if it was not adopted by another sufficiently knowledgeable producer.
The Inverse Commons explains that unlike sharing of hard resources, the sharing of knowledge increases the value of the shared knowledge. Current knowledge becomes more valuable as it gains more future potential uses, and only autonomous knowledge actors can maximize diverse use cases of interoperability.
Software has minimal financing requirements, e.g. one or two humans with computers can write software that launches a $millions start-up. I did this once or twice by myself with no employees (e.g. CoolPage.com by 2001 if in Shadowstats inflation-adjusted dollars).
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy (2013)
P.S. I am grateful to see the AnonyMint account is indeed inaccessible. Thank you to theymos.
Edit: I am reading the pulse of the community-at-large and I think you are Monero's worst enemy. You should recuse yourself from writing about it, because your model (world view) is the antithesis of open source, community development, and decentralization. Perhaps this is why the hacker attacks against Monero have been so expert. You are insulting the hackers. Big mistake. They are now very motivated to prove you wrong. They will come out of the woodwork like unending worms if you persist with this feudal-era (Dark Age), aristocrat model of the future with Monero knights. There is a lot of work to do on the Cryptonote code base, so you need to show your respect for developers, not insult them. We don't work for a King and his court!
The Satoshi hacker is giving a warning to the powers-that-be such as Paypal.
Note I am not that hacker.
