Quote
At one point the lady Ms. Walsh hints that governments should go after code committers.
No, she does not 'hint at' much less say that.If you read her testimony before the senate, she does say that the developers need to realize that they have fiduciary responsibilities in that they must be acting for the greater good of those who use their code to create and use crypto coins.
To me that is a very valid point and in my opinion the devs behind Bitcoin Core do that.
She says (emphasis mine)
Quote
In my view, the governance of crypto systems is critical to understand – who has power, how may it be exercised, and what are the limits of power? Since crypto systems emerged with Bitcoin, a dominant thread of the conversation about them has been that they are “decentralized,” and therefore lack sites of meaningful power. You may have heard that in crypto systems, you don’t have to trust humans and their fallible, corrupt natures – you just have to trust math. If I have one message for the Committee today, it is that this statement is just inaccurate.
Cryptoeconomic systems remain subject to human flaws and corruption, whether in how the software is coded, whether the game theory designed to operate the system is robust, or whether miners collude to exploit their power to order transactions in the blockchain record to their benefit. Since Bitcoin’s 2009 launch, events across the crypto ecosystem have demonstrated time and again that parties within crypto systems (not just those intermediaries outside the systems like exchanges or wallet providers) exercise meaningful power.
In short, it is also a fact that most (but not all) of the folks behind the myriad of altcoins DO NOT feel that they have ANY fiduciary responsibilities and as such act only in their self-interest (can you say shitcoin pump-n-dump schemes?). It is because of those crypto coin developers acting irresponsibly and all too often, fraudulently, that she has concerns which may need to be addressed through legislation.Cryptoeconomic systems remain subject to human flaws and corruption, whether in how the software is coded, whether the game theory designed to operate the system is robust, or whether miners collude to exploit their power to order transactions in the blockchain record to their benefit. Since Bitcoin’s 2009 launch, events across the crypto ecosystem have demonstrated time and again that parties within crypto systems (not just those intermediaries outside the systems like exchanges or wallet providers) exercise meaningful power.
Overall I found her testimony to be refreshingly fair and neutral, both acknowledging what crypto can bring to the table as a useful currency tool while also being fully aware of possible negative aspects that would be detrimental to its use. Not once did she even hint at the usual 'bad/illegal uses' boogeymen that the media love to jump on for eyeball or click bait. Kudos to her for that!
You hit the nail on the head, but I see another issue arising: if they decide to pass legislation concerning code committers, it can very quickly end in a slippery slope problem. Where do you draw the line? For now code committers are protected no matter what. Sure there are bad ones and good ones as is so often the case in life. Some will use Facebook for bad, many for good. Once legislation is passed for code committing, I think it will have a negative impact on programmers as a whole as you never know whether your code in front of a court will be judged as well or ill-intended.
