The biggest risk of centralization, when bitcoin become enough big and government want to kill it, they just need to capture those top 3 guys
Topic: Who Is At The Core Of Bitcoin? Lines Coded Per Developers. (Read 3561 times)
The biggest risk of centralization, when bitcoin become enough big and government want to kill it, they just need to capture those top 3 guys
Apologies if this is somehow off-topic. The company that I work for - a Chinese BTC service that do wallet, mining and exchange, is interested in sponsoring a Bitcoin core developer. I would very much like to know what are some good ways to reach them. PM me or write to [email protected].
You can actually ignore developer behavior in terms of production. Their big beef seems to be with block size and China being majority-holder. This has nothing to do with not having enough devs or repo performance..
My Honest Opinion: I think the big shakeup is to do with bitterness from not getting enough capital before complexity raised so high. This could be what is pushing the block-size politics too. Whoever is first on the new chain, like devs, will be able to pre-mine and even when prices get 1/3 of current block-chain they will be rolling in the binary..
My Honest Opinion: I think the big shakeup is to do with bitterness from not getting enough capital before complexity raised so high. This could be what is pushing the block-size politics too. Whoever is first on the new chain, like devs, will be able to pre-mine and even when prices get 1/3 of current block-chain they will be rolling in the binary..
This is a good indicator. Suprisingly, Mike Hearn is a the bottom. 
Quote
no bitcoinj is a stand alone SVP client. And a java implementation of bitcoin allowed many many large companies already using java to build complex systems implementing bitcoin directly. SatoshiDice is a good example. and many others.
Bitcoinj is used in the most popular android bitcoin wallets. And many many other companies ended up using it as well. Hearn is an X google engineer and its going to be hard finding people to take over maintaining bitcoinj.
here is some perspective. there are over 1 million downloads of the shieldbach android bitcoin wallet. That is just one implementation of bitcoinj. while bitcoin core has less then 6000 nodes even running on the network right now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42c52i/why_is_mike_hearn_called_a_prominent_or_lead/cz96x1y?context=3#cz976h6 Bitcoinj is used in the most popular android bitcoin wallets. And many many other companies ended up using it as well. Hearn is an X google engineer and its going to be hard finding people to take over maintaining bitcoinj.
here is some perspective. there are over 1 million downloads of the shieldbach android bitcoin wallet. That is just one implementation of bitcoinj. while bitcoin core has less then 6000 nodes even running on the network right now.
This is a good indicator. Suprisingly, Mike Hearn is a the bottom. Just a question : are the Core developers paid ? And by who ? The Bitcoin Foundation ?
AFAIK most of them volunteer their time to do this. I think the few who are considered the "Core devs" are actually paid, but not by the Bitcoin Foundation. I think it is the MIT Digital Currency Initiative. Just a question : are the Core developers paid ? And by who ? The Bitcoin Foundation ?
This is a good indicator. Suprisingly, Mike Hearn is a the bottom. Just a question : are the Core developers paid ? And by who ? The Bitcoin Foundation ?
Just a question : are the Core developers paid ? And by who ? The Bitcoin Foundation ? 
I see this will raise quite a bit of discussion... As said the results are not exact. But what I think it's missing from these kinds of data is statistics about BIP's and ideas raised, which would help to see the picture better (although this last factor isn't accountable for).
Peter todd probably suffers most in the difference to that. (And me too, if not for tests)
I see this will raise quite a bit of discussion... As said the results are not exact. But what I think it's missing from these kinds of data is statistics about BIP's and ideas raised, which would help to see the picture better (although this last factor isn't accountable for).
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ojr7/people_who_are_angry_at_the_core_devs_are_utterly/cz3xm1z?context=3
Jeff's comment there is incorrect: Much of my recent work is in a sub-repository; if Jeff were more actively involved in Bitcoin Core he might realize that.Quote from: jgarzik
Side note: The contributor statistics are wrong and do not match reality. This is a known github problem.
For example, for non merge commits ("git log --no-merges"), Greg Maxwell is over-counted (should be 87) and my commits are not shown (should be 234).
For example, for non merge commits ("git log --no-merges"), Greg Maxwell is over-counted (should be 87) and my commits are not shown (should be 234).
The above graph appears to not use any of the commit data or the github stats; it's an authorship trace with git blame and a lot of flags (including interesting ones I didn't previously know about). No doubt it has its own errors. It's also including test harness code, or otherwise mine wouldn't be quite so high. The exclusion of the UI and Wallet likely lowers Jonas' and Wumpus' counts by a fair bit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ojr7/people_who_are_angry_at_the_core_devs_are_utterly/cz3xm1z?context=3
Quote from: jgarzik
Side note: The contributor statistics are wrong and do not match reality. This is a known github problem.
For example, for non merge commits ("git log --no-merges"), Greg Maxwell is over-counted (should be 87) and my commits are not shown (should be 234).
For example, for non merge commits ("git log --no-merges"), Greg Maxwell is over-counted (should be 87) and my commits are not shown (should be 234).
Jump to: