What do you feel Bitcoin's 'leadership' lacks?

[gentlemand]

Whether we like or not, there is a relatively select few who have a good amount of influence over the direction Bitcoin is taking.

Aside from consensus of course, what do you feel such folks could do with more of?

[1715539308]

1715539308

[1715539308]

1715539308

[1715539308]

1715539308

[1715539308]

1715539308

[GermanGiant]

Money. The folks at the top are not rich. Hence they are doing whatever can make them quick rich. They want to make as much as they can and as soon as they can. Money is at the core of the Bitcoin QT vs XT controversy. Money was the core reason of TBF fallout.

[gentlemand]

Money. The folks at the top are not rich. Hence they are doing whatever can make them quick rich. Money is at the core of the Bitcoin QT vs XT controversy. Money was the core reason of TBF fallout.

I wonder. Many would've been around from the earliest days and might already be a bit too comfortable for their own good. I would've thought a bit more hunger would be of benefit.

[jonald_fyookball]

Whether we like or not, there is a relatively select few who have a good amount of influence over the direction Bitcoin is taking.

Aside from consensus of course, what do you feel such folks could do with more of?

Better communication.  You cannot get clear answers from core devs.
I don't understand why they aren't increasing the block size already.

[The Bitcoin Co-op]

Honestly. Some people at the top don't seem to have their hearts in the right place. This has been changing lately, however, as the general power structure has been.

[GermanGiant]

Whether we like or not, there is a relatively select few who have a good amount of influence over the direction Bitcoin is taking.

Aside from consensus of course, what do you feel such folks could do with more of?

Better communication.  You cannot get clear answers from core devs.
I don't understand why they aren't increasing the block size already.

It has been answered hundreds of time by now. If you dont want to understand, no one on earth can force it into your brain.

Simply put: Raising the blocksize will not solve the core problem. A blockchain spam can fill up that as well. It will just push the problem to be solved at a later date, when it would be more complicated to implement.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[GermanGiant]

Honestly. Some people at the top don't seem to have their hearts in the right place. This has been changing lately, however, as the general power structure has been.

Heart ! OMG ! U r looking for Heart in 4B USD ? U r looking for Heart in a technology that can tumble governments ? R u kidding ?

[alani123]

You could be one of those few. Do you have enough knowledge to contribute code? I'm sure valid contribution by any skilfull coder would be welcomed

[The Bitcoin Co-op]

Honestly. Some people at the top don't seem to have their hearts in the right place. This has been changing lately, however, as the general power structure has been.

Heart ! OMG ! U r looking for Heart in 4B USD ? U r looking for Heart in a technology that can tumble governments ? R u kidding ?

If they expect us to send them donations with which to defend Bitcoin, then yes. I'd like to believe they're not using those funds in a way that benefits themselves over the general Bitcoin community. Otherwise, they can pay for their own government lobbyists

[jonald_fyookball]

Whether we like or not, there is a relatively select few who have a good amount of influence over the direction Bitcoin is taking.

Aside from consensus of course, what do you feel such folks could do with more of?

Better communication.  You cannot get clear answers from core devs.
I don't understand why they aren't increasing the block size already.

It has been answered hundreds of time by now. If you dont want to understand, no one on earth can force it into your brain.

Simply put: Raising the blocksize will not solve the core problem. A blockchain spam can fill up that as well. It will just push the problem to be solved at a later date, when it would be more complicated to implement.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

yes I'm aware that it won't solve the core problem but it still makes sense as a temporary measure.
just the fact that it's been answered "hundred of times" tells me the communication is poor.

[jjacob]

Money. The folks at the top are not rich. Hence they are doing whatever can make them quick rich. They want to make as much as they can and as soon as they can. Money is at the core of the Bitcoin QT vs XT controversy. Money was the core reason of TBF fallout.

They might have limited money, but we need to have focus on where to use it. We need a larger portion of the funds available being devoted to development of the Bitcoin protocol.

[Mickeyb]

Money. The folks at the top are not rich. Hence they are doing whatever can make them quick rich. They want to make as much as they can and as soon as they can. Money is at the core of the Bitcoin QT vs XT controversy. Money was the core reason of TBF fallout.

They might have limited money, but we need to have focus on where to use it. We need a larger portion of the funds available being devoted to development of the Bitcoin protocol.

We also need to learn how to agree and make consensus'. Block size debate is just a start, there are many even more important decision and changes to take place in the future if we want that Bitcoin succeeds and what worries me that if we cannot make a consensus on this problem, how the hell are we going to agree later?

I mean this is the price of decentralization but did Bitcoin grow too big to successfully input necessary changes into it is my question?

[EternalWingsofGod]

Whether we like or not, there is a relatively select few who have a good amount of influence over the direction Bitcoin is taking.

Aside from consensus of course, what do you feel such folks could do with more of?

Development and the implemenation of BIPS
Increased versitality in core to support DAC's and second level protocols like side-chains, possibly develop a new infrastructure over time to accomodate changes with less hard-forking required.

[Kprawn]

What we do not need, is for the leaders to fight a battle on two fronts. {Bitcoin QT vs XT} This should not have happened, and the people who created this scenario, should be exposed.

We fight battles from haters, shills, press, governments and politicians and then we devide forces to fight each other? Does that make sense at all?

It has become more important to protect self interest, than protecting the cow that produce the milk. What they do not see is, IF the cows dies, there will not be milk to fight over.   

[Dire]

Money. The folks at the top are not rich. Hence they are doing whatever can make them quick rich. They want to make as much as they can and as soon as they can. Money is at the core of the Bitcoin QT vs XT controversy. Money was the core reason of TBF fallout.

They might have limited money, but we need to have focus on where to use it. We need a larger portion of the funds available being devoted to development of the Bitcoin protocol.

We also need to learn how to agree and make consensus'. Block size debate is just a start, there are many even more important decision and changes to take place in the future if we want that Bitcoin succeeds and what worries me that if we cannot make a consensus on this problem, how the hell are we going to agree later?

I mean this is the price of decentralization but did Bitcoin grow too big to successfully input necessary changes into it is my question?

I mentioned this on another thread somewhere, and although at first it sounds a touch unusual, Bitcoin holders can essentially create a nation... not a state, but a nation.

A nation doesn't necessarily need or claim land ownership. Here's the Wiki definition of a stateless nation:

'A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation


What's the point?

A cohesive group (by vote) can provide greater direction, and be viewed from the outside as such. Nation status can also possibly exist as a legal entity, or at least grant it more weight/rights on the international scene.

Democracy. Using the Counterparty protocol on the (Bitcoin) blockchain, an asset can be set up that will effectively be connected to the Bitcoin nation.

Vote tokens can be distributed via this and so provide (hopefully) clear democratic consensus on Bitcoin future decisions.

All that's really needed is a point of focus website that explains the current vote and its ramifications and so on.

It's a practical move rather than a political one, but either way, the nation would already have it's own currency at the very least.

[pedrog]

I've always been a big supporter of free open source software, the way it is developed and all the philosophy involved, if one does not like the direction something is taking one can always make his own fork, of course in bitcoin this has a complete meaning from previous projects.

We will always have to put some trust in domain specialists, will it be Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman or Gavin Andresen, if you don't want to trust them just learn as much as they do and submit your own proposals.

[Hollingsworth]

Truthfully, I think they are doing all they can. There is an element of seamless trust that had to be adhered to, and if they ever overtly violated that, bitcoin would quickly crash and become irrelevant, like your typical alt coin.