Why do people get upset about bitcoin "being centralized" ?

[hazek]

If devs think something must be improved and want some money for their job they can perfectly claim a bounty here.

Edit to add:

A good bounty system in the forums not only get devs paid. It could prioritize users needs because they contribute in the bountys they need most.

Already disproven by reality.  Bounties have been tried, and did not work.

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work. As an example this community raised 13000 BTC as a bounty for the first short promotional video for Bitcoin which was then spent on a video that now has over 1.2 million view on youtube and funded the weusecoins.com website. If this much was raised for a promotional video, imagine how much can be raised for development? (disclamer, I don't remember the exchange rate at the time 13000BTC was raised, I think it was somewhere around $1)

[1715024200]

1715024200

[1715024200]

1715024200

[RodeoX]

Why? Frequent flier miles. There is an example of a centralized system. So, how many people do you know who are getting rich with frequent flier miles.

[jgarzik]

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Did not work even after paying 15,000 BTC of my own money.

Facts and real world experience have disproven bounties as a way of funding anything approaching full time engineering salaries.

[hazek]

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Did not work even after paying 15,000 BTC of my own money.

Facts and real world experience have disproven bounties as a way of funding anything approaching full time engineering salaries.

Stop with the lies and manipulation. Clearly it does work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

Maybe it didn't work for you because you didn't put enough effort into it and just suck at it and didn't bother to ask around if anyone would be willing to help you. You failing proves absolutely nothing because just because it isn't easy it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

[jgarzik]

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Did not work even after paying 15,000 BTC of my own money.

Facts and real world experience have disproven bounties as a way of funding anything approaching full time engineering salaries.

Stop with the lies and manipulation. Clearly it does work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

You fail completely at logic (and economics).

   The cost of a one-time movie != on-going engineering costs

The problem space is finding a way to fund ongoing engineering and testing.  One time bursts of funds are not predictable nor sustainable.  Try finding an example relevant to the problem.  (hint: you can't)

A rational economic actor prefers a stable, predictable income stream.

[hazek]

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Did not work even after paying 15,000 BTC of my own money.

Facts and real world experience have disproven bounties as a way of funding anything approaching full time engineering salaries.

Stop with the lies and manipulation. Clearly it does work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

You fail completely at logic (and economics).

   The cost of a one-time movie != on-going engineering costs

The problem space is finding a way to fund ongoing engineering and testing.  One time bursts of funds are not predictable nor sustainable.  Try finding an example relevant to the problem.  (hint: you can't)

A rational economic actor prefers a stable, predictable income stream.

See people? What he is admitting here is that my suggestion works, admitting he was disingenuous at best earlier, it's just that he doesn't like it because he knows it is possible to be done in manner that makes it easier for him and he is prepared to do anything if it means it's going to be easier for him.

He isn't happy that the community could choose what to fund in a one time type of burst of funding, no he wants a guaranteed continues funding no matter what it is he wants to do because that's what he prefers. No he doesn't want others to compete with him for the bounties, he wants him to be the one who gets that guaranteed continues funding because that's what he prefers.

I'm done responding to him, because a man will never understand what him getting his paycheck prevents him from understanding. And boy does Jeff want his untaxed continuously guaranteed paycheck.

[jgarzik]

I'm done responding to him, because a man will never understand what him getting his paycheck prevents him from understanding. And boy does Jeff want his untaxed continuously guaranteed paycheck.

See why hazek is a troll?

I have self-selected myself out of the pay pool, as previously stated in the main BF thread:

     I'm quite happy with my day job as a kernel hacker, and don't forsee
     leaving there;  that makes me a "community dev" for example.  (though
     I'll certainly accept beer money donations and the like... see sig)

Real world continues to disprove paranoid suspicions.

Gavin has been doing hard work, the community clearly accepts and approves of it.  If a voluntary organization makes that sustainable, that is positive for bitcoin.

[lebing]

It's important to think about how the centralization comes about. There is voluntary centralization and forced upon centralization. The Bitcoin economy has many points of voluntary centralization already and there will be more of them in the future. I don't see that as a major problem. What we need to avoid is the latter.

Lets be precise shall we?

Yes the Bitcoin economy has voluntary points of centralization, and that's perfectly fine because all these centralized points will get removed the second they misbehave and can't make a profit anymore.

But Bitcoin itself, as a protocol, until 3 days ago had no points of centralization, especially not such that aren't dependent on profits to exist. Please provide a reasonable way how this self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body can be rid of in the future should it misbehave? It can't. If corporate interest throw enough money at it, it can stay around forever, no competition can touch it.

And that's a crucial difference between voluntary for profit centralization around Bitcoin and a self asserted centralization of Bitcoin itself.

You and I both know that the minute the "corporate interests" do something that goes against the interest of the community, is the same minute bitcoin is forked (probably much earlier than that actually) and the community goes with the new fork. As it stands now, the intermingling of these interests are nothing but a good thing as they help with adoption of the currencies by the mainstream.

[hazek]

As it stands now

Yeah, as it stands now when Bitcoin Foundation is still new and still needs to establish itself. But once it does that and it has some significant funding available to fund PR propaganda you and I both know the ignorant masses will never dissent. I mean just look outside to politics for an example.

And any fork will get crushed with smears and propaganda and marginalized into irrelevance. Again look outside to an example in politics.

[lebing]

As it stands now

Yeah, as it stands now when Bitcoin Foundation is still new and still needs to establish itself. But once it does that and it has some significant funding available to fund PR propaganda you and I both know the ignorant masses will never dissent. I mean just look outside to politics for an example.

And any fork will get crushed with smears and propaganda and marginalized into irrelevance. Again look outside to an example in politics.

If I know one thing about the bitcoin community, it's that they are maybe the most paranoid/ distrusting of traditional media/propaganda than any other. I see your argument, but I think you have to consider the context.

Also, let's consider a worst case scenario: Bitcoin's code is co-opted by some terrible corporate interest and a new fork was created. The mainstream was slow to catch on, but the conscious, early adopters saw the issue, with the mainstream slowly moving towards the new fork. I'm sure you can see who benefits from the new fork. Once adoption is clear for one e-currency, barriers to adoption will be MUCH lower for the next one for both merchants and users.

It's important to be clear about your attachment. Is it to bitcoin - or to the benefits that bitcoin brings?