Not all early adopters kept all their coins. Just look at Andreas A. (and well, just look at me, I've been around, I don't have much today.)
Early adopters spent their coins. To buy pizza and lambos and to pay rent.
Topic: Why aren't Bitcoin multimillionaires(billionaires) funding the development ofBTC - page 2. (Read 946 times)
December 15, 2017, 08:14:52 PM
December 14, 2017, 12:58:38 AM
Actually a number of investors are actively doing their best to promote bitcoin. The twin brothers that bought a lot even filed for listing of their own BTC futures exchange.
You mean Gemeni exchange? I thought they were people who provide market data for CBOE futures trading.
December 13, 2017, 10:26:25 PM
Actually a number of investors are actively doing their best to promote bitcoin. The twin brothers that bought a lot even filed for listing of their own BTC futures exchange.
December 13, 2017, 05:25:50 AM
Can you give some links on how SegWit is implemented? I didn't know this is all mostly on a higher level.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness
and here in the forum, expecially the links Achow101 provided:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/segwit-tx-format-need-a-point-in-the-right-direction-2039346
December 13, 2017, 02:36:57 AM
Simple answered summarized :
1. Some of those bitcoiner don't care/know much about bitcoin development
2. People would see it's as attempt to centralize bitcoin
3. They have no idea how to fund unique/unusual technology such as bitcoin, especially since it's decentralized and people sometimes reject new ideas/upgrade/scaling solution
Also, it's hard to distribute the funds since anyone can contribute, only few knows how much someone contribute or whether the developer need funds (since some contributor already rich thanks to donation in early adoption phase)
1. Some of those bitcoiner don't care/know much about bitcoin development
2. People would see it's as attempt to centralize bitcoin
3. They have no idea how to fund unique/unusual technology such as bitcoin, especially since it's decentralized and people sometimes reject new ideas/upgrade/scaling solution
Also, it's hard to distribute the funds since anyone can contribute, only few knows how much someone contribute or whether the developer need funds (since some contributor already rich thanks to donation in early adoption phase)
Not to mention that like tcp/ip, smtp, ftp, dns, http etc, the protocol doesn't need a lot of changes. With SegWit and its components, much can be done at a higher level like http and dns are built on tcp/ip and web pages are built on http/https which is in turn built on tcp/ip. And those are places where people and companies can easily fund themselves with a good idea.
Can you give some links on how SegWit is implemented? I didn't know this is all mostly on a higher level.
December 13, 2017, 02:29:32 AM
Im pretty sure that all the main developers in bitcoin are early adopters, therefore all of the main bitcoin developers are multimillonaires themselves... which means they don't really need any funding, and they will keep getting richer as BTC keeps going up.
Anyone can be part of Bitcoin by submitting your own code, so it's hard to "fund the development of BTC". Like I said, usual contributors are already rich, and we will have new contributors overtime that have not contributed yet. It's hard to distribute money in an open source project like BTC.
Anyone can be part of Bitcoin by submitting your own code, so it's hard to "fund the development of BTC". Like I said, usual contributors are already rich, and we will have new contributors overtime that have not contributed yet. It's hard to distribute money in an open source project like BTC.
I would add to this that avoiding screw-ups orders of magnitude more important then adding features.
December 12, 2017, 07:44:41 PM
Simple answered summarized :
1. Some of those bitcoiner don't care/know much about bitcoin development
2. People would see it's as attempt to centralize bitcoin
3. They have no idea how to fund unique/unusual technology such as bitcoin, especially since it's decentralized and people sometimes reject new ideas/upgrade/scaling solution
Also, it's hard to distribute the funds since anyone can contribute, only few knows how much someone contribute or whether the developer need funds (since some contributor already rich thanks to donation in early adoption phase)
1. Some of those bitcoiner don't care/know much about bitcoin development
2. People would see it's as attempt to centralize bitcoin
3. They have no idea how to fund unique/unusual technology such as bitcoin, especially since it's decentralized and people sometimes reject new ideas/upgrade/scaling solution
Also, it's hard to distribute the funds since anyone can contribute, only few knows how much someone contribute or whether the developer need funds (since some contributor already rich thanks to donation in early adoption phase)
Not to mention that like tcp/ip, smtp, ftp, dns, http etc, the protocol doesn't need a lot of changes. With SegWit and its components, much can be done at a higher level like http and dns are built on tcp/ip and web pages are built on http/https which is in turn built on tcp/ip. And those are places where people and companies can easily fund themselves with a good idea.
December 12, 2017, 12:35:41 PM
Development does not just include the bitcoin Core group, but a hundred other types of industry, including exchanges, hardware such as Trezor, bitcoin ATM, a hundred different wallets, and a thousand alt coins.
December 12, 2017, 12:03:52 PM
It's not solely about sustaining full-time careers - most of these open-source projects have a large number of contributors that suggest small alterations to the code.
However, those that do work full-time sometimes get sponsored by people in the industry. Blockstream, for example, hires some of the Core devs.
Sure, there's not huge amounts of money in it, but there's not much of a solution to that. Adding funding for development as part of the block reward, for example, would give one group an unjust advantage over development (that's what some cryptos attempt to do).
However, those that do work full-time sometimes get sponsored by people in the industry. Blockstream, for example, hires some of the Core devs.
Sure, there's not huge amounts of money in it, but there's not much of a solution to that. Adding funding for development as part of the block reward, for example, would give one group an unjust advantage over development (that's what some cryptos attempt to do).
December 12, 2017, 11:06:21 AM
Im pretty sure that all the main developers in bitcoin are early adopters, therefore all of the main bitcoin developers are multimillonaires themselves... which means they don't really need any funding, and they will keep getting richer as BTC keeps going up.
Anyone can be part of Bitcoin by submitting your own code, so it's hard to "fund the development of BTC". Like I said, usual contributors are already rich, and we will have new contributors overtime that have not contributed yet. It's hard to distribute money in an open source project like BTC.
Anyone can be part of Bitcoin by submitting your own code, so it's hard to "fund the development of BTC". Like I said, usual contributors are already rich, and we will have new contributors overtime that have not contributed yet. It's hard to distribute money in an open source project like BTC.
December 11, 2017, 10:12:32 PM
December 11, 2017, 04:47:51 PM
Is there any btc development going on?
December 11, 2017, 12:49:11 PM
So how many people are working lightning? Like 10? Maybe?
Seems like not many people are intrested in participating in open source("free) development?
Many people have gotten crazy rich from this thing, why do they not fund the developers or something? It would only increase their wealth and their net worth is probably above what you need. I mean they could afford to contribute.
Why is there not a fundraiser for the development, or some campaign like this? Do you think this is not needed?
Any thoughts?
Seems like not many people are intrested in participating in open source("free) development?
Many people have gotten crazy rich from this thing, why do they not fund the developers or something? It would only increase their wealth and their net worth is probably above what you need. I mean they could afford to contribute.
Why is there not a fundraiser for the development, or some campaign like this? Do you think this is not needed?
Any thoughts?
Jump to: