Would you use Bitcoin if it was proprietary/closed source software?

[Checlets]

Everyone became interested about bitcoin in the beginning is simply because it is an open source software model and if it was a closed source no one would care to invest in it in the first place and like lauda mentioned , Producing any amount of money very quickly and tracking the users are an issue that will come with closed source or centralized structures.

I honestly think we are better off with Bitcoin as open source. The fact that no one can claim it or patent it means we don't have to worry about government or organizational elites fucking "commoners" over all night and all day just because they feel they are above everyone else and thus deserve to be able to steal from everyone else. Open source code is very important for me as far as using Bitcoin goes. I don't want the government or anyone to think they have a right and have the power to Snoop around my transaction logs without my permission. Bitcoin in a form that enables one governmental or organizational entity to have a monopoly over bitcoin would be worthless.

[devachelekar]

Everyone became interested about bitcoin in the beginning is simply because it is an open source software model and if it was a closed source no one would care to invest in it in the first place and like lauda mentioned , Producing any amount of money very quickly and tracking the users are an issue that will come with closed source or centralized structures.

I honestly think we are better off with Bitcoin as open source. The fact that no one can claim it or patent it means we don't have to worry about government or organizational elites fucking "commoners" over all night and all day just because they feel they are above everyone else and thus deserve to be able to steal from everyone else. Open source code is very important for me as far as using Bitcoin goes. I don't want the government or anyone to think they have a right and have the power to Snoop around my transaction logs without my permission. Bitcoin in a form that enables one governmental or organizational entity to have a monopoly over bitcoin would be worthless.

[davis196]

Yes, I've​ never had the idea of like: "Hmmmm lets just read the source code etc.". I've never thought about it.

So why should I care if it was closed? It would be the same for me.

If the software was closed source the devs could steal our bitcoins and do whatever they want with them and the source code.
I`m not very programming savvy and this is just my theory.

[Amph]

you must be kidding with the all virus and malware/keylogger and what else, you will be plagued with virus in seconds with a private source

crypto must be open source ever, there is no other way around, still i would support a better consensus mechanics were not only miners and exchange/merchants count, but also full nodes

[DoublerHunter]

I do, i will still use bitcoin even it is closed source software because i don't care too much about it as long as bitcoin is decentralized and convenient then being closed source software will not bother me in using it. I am more focus on the features of a coin rather than its technical specs like being closed source software or any kind of things that related to that.

[d5000]

OK, there is some participation now, now I'll explain my position in this debate.

I think, like most here, that an available source code is a "must" for a cryptocurrency because of security reasons.

But I also oppose "shared source" models. In this kind of license typically changes to the source code are restricted or you can't use it for any purpose.

First, some of these licenses would impede coders to experiment with alternative implementations based on the same source code. So the software ecosystem would be limited and the development, centralized.

Second, there is a new kind of "shared source" licenses I first saw with Bitshares and Steem. In these, the code can be changed, but it cannot be used for another cryptocurrency project. If you compare this to a Linux software, for example, that would be equivalent to a term that says you couldn't use code from an Ubuntu software for Debian, for example. Also in these cases, I think the potential ecosystem growth is damaged, as "private", "Consortium" or "alternative" chains should normally benefit the main project and competition is usually healthy.

The third, and very important, reason I oppose "shared source" licenses for Bitcoin is that the code would be incompatible with many established open source software tools and could not benefit fully from the open source software ecosystem.

In conclusion: I think a "shared source" license for a cryptocurrency's reference client would have serious acceptance problems and a limited ecosystem and the underlying protocol would never develop into a fully mainstream cryptocurrency.

[Sadlife]

Open source software for bitcoin is really important because it is the main reason why this crypto currency survive through all this years.
if it's not open source bitcoin will not further innovate without the help of the community and it will be like BUcoin that has many flaws.
Putting some restriction in modifying the source code is not a bad idea it is to avoid some exploit that the attacker might do.

[ASHLIUSZ]

Well it would be hypocrisy if I say no, I have been using lots of closed source software ever since I am a teenager, and the window software I am using atm is a closed source, even the Microsoft office I am using is not open source, the system banks are using are not open source too, so I guess I will be using Bitcoin even if it is closed source software since developers had established their reputation and most of the community trust them.

The same way for some reason I use it even if it was developed on a closed platform. Importantly the reputation one provide is the one that makes other people to participate into the network activities or not. As quoted we cannot deny closed platforms were not secure or scam the users, because lots of success stories are with it.