Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company?

[franky1]

The idea that blockstream controls core and has a secret agenda to manipulate core is complete and absolute bullshit.

How, exactly, does blockstream "drive" the development of Bitcoin Core? Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons. 1 out of 7 certainly does not mean that they have control, in fact, that is very little control. The other 6 developers are not affiliated with blockstream and they would revoke the access rights of sipa if he decided to commit things for blockstream that is detrimental to Bitcoin.

Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.

your analogy is much like saying.. "its not like burglars wanting to break in and steal the family jewels, blockstream was a family business, it is their house"

but its more like "someone in the family is now stealing the family jewels. he has now told his friends if they hand him some cash, he will leave the door unlocked so anyone can sneak in"
while also pointing the finger at the 2 cousins he pushed away and said dont trust them they know bad people, they are the ones after the family jewels, not my friends

[1715342685]

1715342685

[1715342685]

1715342685

[1715342685]

1715342685

[achow101]

your analogy is much like saying.. "its not like burglars wanting to break in and steal the family jewels, blockstream was a family business, it is their house"

but its more like "someone in the family is now stealing the family jewels. he has now told his friends if they hand him some cash, he will leave the door unlocked so anyone can sneak in"

I'm not giving you an analogy...

But your analogy is false. Anything that blockstream would try to do with Bitcoin Core would have to go through sipa because he is the only one with commit access that works for blockstream. He can't "give them the keys" because there are no keys and there is nothing to give. Sipa could write code and commit it or people at blockstream could write code and submit a PR. Either way, the other 6 people with commit access would notice or the other hundreds of people actively watching Bitcoin Core's progress (me included) would notice. They would definitely notice if code was committed without a PR because that goes against the code review process. They would definitely notice if a PR was merged without discussion or with discussion and a lot of NACKs. That would of course result in the offending code being reverted and sipa having his commit access revoked. If that doesn't happen, a lot of people will be forking Bitcoin away from Bitcoin Core.

So going along with your analogy, sure the person in the family can give his friends the keys, but he cannot disable the alarm system. The alarm system will go off when the burglars try to break in and then the burglars are caught by the police and sent to jail.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

All forks are dangerous and all forks must be deployed with near total consensus. Both hard and soft forks.*

_{*Use in moderation.}

[Cconvert2G36]

Nah, seems perfectly reasonable that the "reference" software of the decentralized future of money would share the roadmap of a company with direct and growing ties to the past of money. 

Besides, we all know that a beautiful 76 million dollar saddle won't chafe too much. It doesn't have to, consider it a down payment on lots of riding through the verdant countryside together [altruistic work on open source software for the benefit of everyone].

A wonderful day in Bitcoin history, my friends.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Nah, seems perfectly reasonable that the "reference" software of the decentralized future of money would share the roadmap of a company with direct and growing ties to the past of money. 

Besides, we all know that a beautiful 76 million dollar saddle won't chafe too much. It doesn't have to, consider it a down payment on lots of riding through the verdant countryside together [altruistic work on open source software for the benefit of everyone].

A wonderful day in Bitcoin history, my friends.

Coders code eat like shining kings of the Earth while their peasant servants salt your fields. U jelly?

[-XXIII-]

The nature of greed is to spawn multiple heads. Bitcoin and it's value attract that sort of beast, which is sadly inevitable; Bitcoin Incorporated is inevitable.

[Kakmakr]

What are our options, if you truly look into this a little deeper? The evil <greed/power hungry> are coming from all sides. Our Options were Blockstream or Gavin or Mike Hearn and all of them had a hidden agenda. You will never remove the human element out of any technology or innovation.

Give me one team without a hidden agenda and I will follow them. If not, I will follow the people with the good code. 

[gmaxwell]

Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.

Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.

Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.

[Gleb Gamow]

So Tor's development is driven by the US government? Just trying to understand your logic behind this.

Wait, PwC is behind Tor?

[Jet Cash]

I thought Blockstream are into sidechains, which I believe will become an important part of Bitcoins future, and enable it to become a world reserve currency. Why should their sidechain activities mean they are taking control of core?

[shorena]

So Tor's development is driven by the US government? Just trying to understand your logic behind this.

TOR development is funded by the US government, but not necessarily driven by it. Unlike corporations, governments (at least in theory) are not created/structured to generate profit.

Governments esp. the US one have shown to have a great interest in compromising the ability of anyone to stay anonymous for the sake of law enforcement. Tor is a thorn in their eyes, while at the same time they need it.

Thanks for making my point though. Some core developers are funded by blockstream, but that does not mean the core development or the bitcoin development in general is driven by the company.

[johnyj]

I think the right direction is to let the protocol more or less fixed and spread it widely so it understood by more people. Just like IP protocol taught in many universities today

If you constantly change the protocol, then all the effort that countless people have put into making educational material and tutorials/books/videos will all become irrelevant very quickly, this is a way to not become a standard

People are talking about blockchain today, but then they heard that bitcoin is not blockchain anymore, it has changed to segwit chain, and maybe in future it will change its chain structure several times a day due to soft fork is totally safe

[go1111111]

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away

IMO, no matter what happens to Bitcoin, if some people end up wanting decentralized money in the future they will have it. The technology can't be un-invented. If the 'main fork' of BItcoin eventually becomes highly centralized, some decentralized fork will spring up as long as there are cypherpunks who value it. Or some new cryptocurrency will be fill the 'hardcore decentralization' niche.

[Cconvert2G36]

Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.

Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

You _left_ for a month, and magically your email to the mailing list became core's official roadmap. So yes, there are some more than tangential connections here. Your visible agitation towards having to deflect this isn't encouraging.

Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.

Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

More stories you've concocted to explain away criticism in your mind. They want some clean on-chain scaling so they must be altcoiners, anti privacy agents, or the same people that had us pinned at the 1MB limit for years with data storage and spam... Look, everyone wants LN and sidechains to exist and be functional, they just want them to compete on an even, not heavily slanted playing field.

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.

Exactly. Well put.

[btcxyzzz]

When did Bitcoin go from being free and community driven development with volunteers fighting against current financial systems and companies, into de-facto companies driven project with primary goal of fast financial gains?

Recently. Too ignorant miners wanting short-term profits are the primary cause.

[Lauda]

You _left_ for a month, and magically your email to the mailing list became core's official roadmap. So yes, there are some more than tangential connections here. Your visible agitation towards having to deflect this isn't encouraging.

He left as in gave up commit access. It became obvious that he was not the 'problem' and that the 'Blockstream is evil' propaganda still persists, there was no reason to give in to trolls and shills.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.

Exactly. Well put.

Indeed.

Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.

Propaganda and lies are 'honest' disagreements? No. Either they're shills or there is something wrong with them. This has gone far beyond 'honest disagreements' (if you want those don't read almost anything in the last 6+ months).

The idea that blockstream controls core and has a secret agenda to manipulate core is complete and absolute bullshit.
How, exactly, does blockstream "drive" the development of Bitcoin Core? Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.

The question is why are some of the members here buying into this story? It is pretty clear the that other side is going to use just about anything to get a successful 'fork' regardless of consensus.

[Eric Mu]

Core development used to be literally controlled by one individual (at least entity ), first Satoshi and later Gavin. I think it may be more meaningful to ask another question: Is the interest of the Bitcoin economic majority well aligned with the interest of the company doing most of the protocol maintenance? Even if there is no company, you can't rule out the possibility of most core devs suddenly go evil and conspire to destroy Bitcoin - They might have a better chance that way.

[MeteoImpact]

snip

I feel really bad for you dedicated bastards who actually put your time and talents into developing a potentially revolutionary technology, only to get shit on constantly by the ridiculous mood that's been overtaking the Bitcoin community lately. I'm largely a lurker on these forums, but it's gotten to the point where the noise is so abundant that the only way I feel that I can get useful information without dealing with overwhelming amounts of junk is to directly follow your posting history, Mr. Maxwell. So thank you; thank you to yourself and all of the actual development team that has done so much and put up with so much crap for the sake of an idea. I don't have the skills to offer much to Bitcoin, but I'll keep running a Core node for as long as it is viable to do so (which, best case scenario, might well be forever).

[Zarathustra]

If the majority of the community agrees that certain commits should not be followed, they won't. Kinda how Gavin and Mike dug their own holes.

Garzik is reportedly now using the same shovel as Gavin and Mike, as he attacks segwit for no good reason.

I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens?

You'd think Classic's (heavy-handed, top-down) steadfast commitment to 75% instead of the far more reasonable (and miner endorsed) 95% would clue Jeff in to the fact it's not a serious effort.  But no....

If anything is far more reasonable than 75%, then the Satoshi 51% fork, dear Monero troll!

[n2004al]

I was recently reading this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43pq1z/i_didnt_realize_how_bad_it_is_blockstream_has_9/?ref=search_posts

And it seems scary that Bitcoin Core development is driven by a single company. With news that this company got $55 mil founding more, I worry they will be doing more to please and make profits for themselfs and investors, rather than what's good for Bitcoin's community.

When did Bitcoin go from being free and community driven development with volunteers fighting against current financial systems and companies, into de-facto companies driven project with primary goal of fast financial gains?

Normally if is made a concern must be made even a proposal. To criticize or to make doubts is normal but is not normal to be stopped here. Let tell that you have right. What it would be the solution of this situation? Creating a corporate with 1 000 000 or even more owners (miners and users of bitcoin)? There are way much less them who must take care for bitcoin and are divided because of bullshits. How can be managed such kind of structure according to you? According to me must think before telling something. As I told even in some other my posts written before, it is easy to destroy but is hard to build. Everyone is able to destroy but only very few are able to build. Are you able to build? For such kind of people have need the world today and forever. Maybe even for destroyers but way much less. And only when after this act will be build.