Topic: What is a team and what is not a team. - page 2. (Read 1534 times)

my implementation does have save as.. as i couldnt be bothered waiting around for core devs to do the small stuff.
but now ur just trying to divert the conversation from talking about the core dev "team". so try staying in the context of what the core devs could be doing to help the community, and themselves

Surely your VB wallet can have a "Save As -> Epic Facepalm" feature?



Perhaps also add a "hover to show private key" while you're at it!

(and don't forget to add a "copy private key to clipboard" on the right click menu)

but that can be done.
EG
kick starter for USER features.
(lets put the fundemental protocol code to the side and not have that up for financial debate right now)

but lets say miners wanted some added API stuff
lets say some merchants wanted some api features too..

the core team can do kickstarters for different features (that do not affect the fundemental rules)

even things like a File -> save as feature so people can export privkeys with without needing to go into debug..(command prompts)

i think the dev team would be more incentivised to code if they are funded per micro project (feature) rather than salary based, which we all know doesnt make people rushed into doing much code.. yes i know being on a salary helps relax financial worries compared to being a volunteer and thus gives more motivation to concentrate on code.. but being paid per feature then becomes a bonus or more incentive to add more features that the community will want sooner. and by being kickstarter style, it wont require searching for 1 backer to cover costs.. instead 1000+ people can throw 0.0025($1) each ($1000) for someone to make a simple 'file -> save as' menu and dialog box within days.

ok. i know that you will be about to say that core's ultimate aim is just to be the engine of bitcoin and if people want shiny chassis with leather seats and lots of twiddly knobs they can make their own GUI, and that core doesnt want to be shiny and feature filled..
but there are still some basic features that fullnodes would like to have which dont bloat core into a shiny knobs and switches category.

lets say you did do kickstarters for fundemental rules.. like if core done a kickstarter for 2mb blocklimit but only implementing it if the community threw in a collectively X bitcoin to cover the few hours of code changes.. and a month of testing (costing the community maybe a couple dollars each)..
or the segwit stuff that benefits miners processing time.. they would pay alot..

and i know you will say that it will raise a debate about "bribery to corrupt bitcoin".. but alteast its more open to the community to pay for what they want, rather than hidden salaries where the community has no clue whats in your employment contracts.

None of us have to take funding from anywhere in particular. Do you have any idea what experienced people in the domains we are knowledgeable in can get paid-- even entirely outside of the Bitcoin space?  Often more than attorneys.

Where we choose to work is a matter of optimizing our time and interests. We have the incredible fortune that none of us are forced to compromise our principles to put bread on the table.

It's true that the employment situation for many around the world isn't amazing, but right now (and for the last decade at least) any concern for systems programing, cryptography, network programing, security, etc. is misplaced.

I have spent two days unemployed, a weekend, in the last 21 years.

It seems that people are getting more and more concerned about who is backing what development team. I can understand that bitcoin was a way to get away from the money powerhouses, but we must not forget that the development also needs recources.

If the dev teams did not need extra funding, they probaly wouldn't be involved with these parties anyway. If this is the only way to get funds for them, they have to take it.

but with a 2mb +segwit it's the equivalent of 4mb
.. compared to just 1mbsegwit. and then a 2mb update next year

thus 2mb+segwit solves the 4mb debate before it even starts in 2017-2018

i agree that a 2mb without segwit will just be a delay for 1-2 years until debates return
i agree that just 1mbsegwit will just be a delay for 1-2 years until debate returns.
(im not saying 1 year because no one can be accurate about timescales of human emotion, without the context of future actual need which cant be predicted)

but 2mbsegwit should give atleast 2-4 years of delay, which is enough time for weakblocks and LN to get coded and tested and ready for release to then dissaude a 8mb debate in 2-4 years

Without a doubt if they raise it to 2MB now then next year we'll be having the exact same stupid arguments about 4MB.

From the perspective of day-trading this is actually very good (no day-trader wants the price to be stable) but from the perspective of Bitcoin changing the world the roller-coaster ride has to become smoother.

though i dont like gavins connection to the R3 group in 2015 (xt) or the creepy stuff related to cryptsy M long (classic).. but we also cant stay away from not highlighting cores's latest backers.. (blockstream/pricewaterhouse)

maybe if core concentrated on the code of bitcoin, and wasnt interested in liquid. there would be less conspiracy theories that core wants to castrate bitcoin to make people prefer liquid.
maybe if core didnt make fake assumptions that 2mb was bad, purely to pander to miners wanting to use the limits to add a premium because there isnt enough room in a block for everyone. we wouldnt laugh so much that core pretends there isnt a problem with 1mb..

i suggest core does the 2mb and segwit all in one swoop. after all if fullnodes want to remain fullnodes they need to upgrade anyway. otherwise they are downgraded to just being "compatible nodes". so by upgrading. 2 birds with one stone will be hit. instead of throwing stones and missing the target every few months for a 2 year roadmap.

whereby the 2mb sits as just a buffer for a long time until it has been deemed consensus (bitnodes.io reveals the useragent version shows high percentile adoption) and then the miners can start making blocks bigger than 1mb (eg testing the waters with 1.005mb and then increasing when their processing time is comfortable to do so)

Maybe what should be done (politically) is to give Gavin some sort of "title" (but not actual control) such as "Esteemed Core Developer".

This way he can get back to contributing to the core and stop jumping on every new project that is trying to wrest control from the core developers.

One thing is sure if those people involved into bitcoin developement wont work as one we will see the price of bitcoin instead grow crash as the xt version  had done to the value of bitcoin,soo in the end they need to have one vision,that will lead bitcoin to sucess.

yeah ok, and when we need 4mb? What shall we do ? another segwit thing? temporary solutions are the same solution that were adopted in the past, they do not solve anything

this exact debate will be done in 5 years from now, with the same argument, the same need for an hard fork and shit like that, so yeah there is an issue

As CIYAM pointed, there's no issue, but a fabricated one. As a philosopher said, we should be questioning what is and isn't an actual problem before anything. Segregated witness gives us enough time to not have to hardfork. If we didn't have segregated witness, then yes, we should be hardforking to 2MB by now, but guess what! we have segregated witness, so wanting to hardfork to 2MB as well is just bitching for the sake of it at this point

There simply is no 2MB block issue - so your post just shows you don't very much (but don't worry as you are part of the majority of people that don't know very much who seem to think that they should control this project).

All this egomaniac discussions are pointless IMHO. we should be discussing how to solve the 2mb block issue, not who's better fitted to be among the " CORE"

There's no team, but merit and talent, and all the merit and talent happens to be within Bitcoin's Core devs, therefore anyone going for anything that isn't Core is an uninformed moron that wants to put everything at risk for no reason, since seg wit allows roughtly the same capacity increase as a 2MB hardfork. It's insulting to Peter W that they want to disregard his work and hardfork nontheless to get this extra MB that no one with a brain wants since it would centralize nodes. We are not ready to deal with double the growth of the blocksize with current hardware. Centralization of nodes WOULD start appearing if this happens. For some reason those doofuses can't swallow this red pill.



Szabo tweeted this. Nothing more to add.

So with all of this stupid debate about trying to replace the Core Devs with whatever thing Gavin wants to associate himself with this week (as we all know he might change allegiance next week).

Can we just instead have a team that works?

(oh - yes - we have one - but Gavin is not happy because he left and thinks that he should still be in control after he left)