Ideas for distributed bitcoin development

[ThePurplePlanet]

Bitcoin development is not very decentralized.

First idea

Why not allow multiple testnet chains to have monetary value for a period of time say 1 year so that different testnet implementations (after one year reset) compete with each other and automatically fork the one with most hasing power? Various devs can own part of the testnet tokens so that they have incentives to improve the code.

What are the drawbacks?

Second idea

Allow devs to earn a % of next years fees if their approach is selected. Users can  select the best testnet might be by signing a messge based on stake. Bitcoin can have a fixed update cycle like debian....

Development needs a funding model to keep it going. Also the market knows better what features are important at each point of time.



Bitcoin is an autonomous corporation that rewards its miners for securing it but does not reward development of new ideas and adaptation. Thus we rely on foundations and the free time of devs.

Same model might be adapted to pay nodes after they serviced the network.

[jonald_fyookball]

I thought the BCF is supposed to help pay for dev efforts

[Gavin Andresen]

I thought the BCF is supposed to help pay for dev efforts

The Bitcoin Foundation does help pay for dev efforts; it pays me, Wladimir, and Cory Fields (and gives quarterly grants to fund other worthwhile efforts).

I disagree with the original poster; Bitcoin development is increasingly decentralized over time. It started out as centralized as it could possibly be-- Satoshi wrote all the code himself (or herself or their-selves).

Now we have multiple implementations, multiple altcoins, and multiple wanna-be-Bitcoin-2.0 contenders, all with their own dev person-or-team (well, some altcoins probably don't have any developers).

As for your specific ideas: go for it. If you think they're good ideas, implement them (or hire or convince somebody to implement them) and see what happens.

[jonald_fyookball]

Yes I was being rhetorical.  I have a better appreciation for the BCF after watching one of your recent talks on YouTube.  There's a lot of BCF bashing here on the forum but I think it is mostly unwarranted.

[ThePurplePlanet]

I thought the BCF is supposed to help pay for dev efforts

The Bitcoin Foundation does help pay for dev efforts; it pays me, Wladimir, and Cory Fields (and gives quarterly grants to fund other worthwhile efforts).

I disagree with the original poster; Bitcoin development is increasingly decentralized over time. It started out as centralized as it could possibly be-- Satoshi wrote all the code himself (or herself or their-selves).

Now we have multiple implementations, multiple altcoins, and multiple wanna-be-Bitcoin-2.0 contenders, all with their own dev person-or-team (well, some altcoins probably don't have any developers).

As for your specific ideas: go for it. If you think they're good ideas, implement them (or hire or convince somebody to implement them) and see what happens.

Thanks for the reply.. I didnt say it is centralized but it is not decentralized either... Can we always rely on BCF?
How is the model different than other major projects like linux? Do they have a foundation?

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't think we should rely necessarily on any one person or group.  Like Gavin said, there are multiple implementations now and we are encouraged to do our own thing.  Much of it is business driven.  Even BCF is driven by companies being paid members for the business benefit of displaying the BCF badge.