Topic: The Problem of Centralized Develpoment ("core devs") in Bitcoin. (Read 1892 times)

it will be taken over sooner or later. p2p. trustless. no fork.

there are over 100 bitcoin-core dev's

there is gavin paid by foundation member fee's
there is luke-jr paid by eligius mining pool fee's
there is jeff G paid by bitpay transaction fee's

and there are still over 100 other people that have more common interests and paid in a multitude of ways. thus the demography of the bitcoin core group is DIVERSE!!

that being said gavin cannot just throw in his own code and thats the end of it. each code input has to be acknowledged and checked by the other team members.

and even on release, if the other 1 million users do not like it, they wont upgrade to the new version. again making it even more diverse and voluntary.

ANYONE can sign up to github, and put in some code of their own, and if the code is good and useful, it will be accepted by the team and eventually everyone who decides the upgrade has benefits.

the problem is not the bitcoin core team, but noobs perceptions that every stupid idea should be added because the noobs say so.

for instance many noobs think PoS is good, not because its good for security, not because its good for bitcoin production and circulation(because in both cases it is not good). but more because its the noobs belief that they can get rich without even bothering to buy miners.

if you have a PROPER great idea that will make bitcoin more secure, and better for the 140 years to go. then submit the code and description of how it is better. but be prepared, idea's should not be about your personal opinion, but about the big picture.

Bitcoiners should organize themselves and push bitcoin marketing to the limit. That, I think will be very helpful for bitcoin adoption.

Exactly! There are much better ways to do it but the movers and shakers set it up the way it is and it will take time to change the system. Like all things it will slowly change.

Yes, I agree.

 I think Lighthouse will solve this as it will allow a majority of users to "vote" with a few dollars just like how the dark wallet with Indiegogo was created on the libbitcoin/sx implementation.

LOL

I just hate how conversations here have to degenerate to name calling. I've even been guilty of it myself (but you really need to crank me up first). I don't agree with a voting system and much prefer the way the Linux foundation runs it with inputs from all corners of the globe being welcome. I don't however believe that only one developer deserves to get paid. Maybe they could pay a different developer every year and spread it around a little.

I still love you in spite of my stiff prick

I was really just looking for some further clarification on what you prefer changed.

What do you think happens to developers who are forced to work on features they don't agree with and are not being paid to do so?

What should happen to them?

I wasn't actually talking to you. You were able to make your case without being a stiff prick.

Love? No. But I do recognize that Bitcoin has originated somewhere near the people with the anarchist worldview. Out of all anarcho-something groups I think anarcho-syndicalism is the most promising way forward while staying near the roots.

Right; see what a mistake that was?

This is not how open source development works.

If you don't like version N+1 of the software, just stick with version N.  You are welcome to pay someone to make an N+1' version that goes off in a different direction if you like.

Yes, I do like how open software in general is developed. You are certainly free to create an alternative implementation or stack which works with the blockchain where non-paying users can demand features from developers. Why don't you do this, or do you have another proposal?

Wow, that's pretty harsh! So you love the way it works now? If not what's your idea?

Check for yourself; most developers don't work for and are not associated with the Bitcoin foundation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message to anyone wanting to have non-paying users force developers to code certain features:

Open source isn't about democracy, but more closely related to a form of anarchistic meritocracy.

 I would suggest you migrate over to a different currency which matches your democratic ideals like perhaps a DPoS variation or a Fiat PoS variation where a framework is created where users can vote upon changes in the governing protocol rather than an open and free ecosystem where anyone can contribute and participate voluntarily without the majority forcing mandates upon minorities.

Hopefully the part of the BF having an influence changes real soon. I dont trust that site/organisation, if you can even call them that.

Bitcoin isn't a corporation. Are you suggesting you would prefer it to behave like a corporation?


Do you even realize how wrong this statement is? Besides desktops, linux dominates practically every other sector from servers, to research, to tablets, to embedded devices, to cell phones. Most computers in the world depend upon open source software.

You are free to create another bitcoin implementation that interacts with the blockchain freely where non-paying users can demand features from developers. How will these developers be paid and what is going to motivate them?

This is a variant of the "follow the money" argument.  You are saying if you want a feature, either code it or pay somebody to code it.  Very true, but it's also not the way modern corporations grow, see my comment upstream.  

case in point:  Swiss banks prided themselves on secrecy, and did their own thing for decades.  World opinion thought otherwise of Swiss banking secrecy, and majority opinion (of the kind you seem to disparage) voted Swiss banking secrecy out of existence.  Even the Swiss parliament bowed to world opinion (chiefly the EU and USA).   Another more familiar example to computer types is the old Linux vs Windows debate.  True, Linux is 'open source' and 'bazaar vs cathedral' models and all that, but absent mobile phones (if you consider that Linux) it still has less than about 2% market share.  The masses (majority opinion) spoke, and the "money" listened or went out of business or stayed obscure.  Don't think for a second the Bitcoin whales that hold significant amounts of BTC don't understand this.  They will sacrifice the beloved 'open source' and 'anonymity' features of BTC if it allows a 10x increase in price, in a heartbeat.

 The only stakeholders with any right to dictate what developers do with their time are ones that have agreements with them such as donors to the Bitcoin Foundation, crowdfunded projects, or employers at a company paying for development work. Otherwise you are simply leaching off of developers efforts and trying to micromanage their time.

Remember you are actively encouraged to develop and test yourself with everyone else and if you have any disagreements you can work on another stack.

Bullying developers to write code based upon the dictates of non-paying(buying bitcoin pays for past dev at the most) users is not the way to accomplish anything for ethical or pragmatic reasons.

Well said.  What your detractors are pointing out is that the "stakeholders" (the customers in your example) have no real vote since they are not paying the core devs.  This is true, but also "old school".  Modern corporations in fact adopt your proposal, which is the modern trend, and incorporate 'stakeholders' in varying degrees.  An example is the PR campaign from BP, the oil company, saying to environmental groups "we agree with you on green energy" (mainly to ward off harmful legislation).  More directly, in your example, failure to listen to the "stakeholders" might mean less adoptions from the masses, and Bitcoin may go the way of "Linux" with PC operating systems.  Or, as I think G.A. and some others want (and have hinted) Bitcoin may go 'mainstream' and abandon the anonymity features it has, which will actually make it more suitable for international money transfers (i.e., it will prevent Bitcoin from being banned, and Bitcoin will essentially become a super-cheap, turbo-charged Western Union or improved PayPal, which is not such a bad thing actually).

I've only been here a short time, but already I see the writing on the wall (that if I have time I will explain later) and that is:  BTC is doomed as presently designed (though I am a holder of BTC and hope it goes up in price).

The developers are users as well and have interests outside of coding and cryptography. Additionally, some of these developers are paid by for profit and non profit companies that have other individuals in sales/finance  who dictate certain features be created.

Users can croudfund new features if they need to or simply develop them themselves. This is what lighthouse is for: https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse



Your suggestions seem to be well intentioned but clearly show you are unfamiliar with developing open source software. If you try and mandate developers with majority voting you will simply scare them away and they will just work on other projects. Developers either are being paid to develop features by companies or donate their time because they enjoy supporting the ecosystem. Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion. If you feel strongly about implementing a certain feature than contribute code yourself , request a pull on github, or pay a developer to do so for you. Their are multiple stacks or implementations of bitcoin that interacts with the blockchain as well. You are encouraged to contribute to those if you don't agree with the direction the Bitcoin core developers are taking bitcoin. In fact, many of the Bitcoin core developers would welcome more development in various other implementations or stacks.