Closed

[Mike Hearn]

As far as I know none of the core developers have become millionaires because of Bitcoin. The whole assumption that you can become a millionaire this way is based on the idea that after finding Bitcoin, all you do is try to acquire as many as possible and hold onto them (obviously to get a salary you need to sell them from time to time). But developers tend to want to .... develop ..... not mine or hoard.

[gweedo]

Regarding A: So if Gavin did buy lots of coins and is currently a millionaire, he doesn't deserve a salary for all the work he's doing? And why should he divulge how many coins he has?

Regarding B: Everyone wants more money. I do, you do, Gavin does. There is nothing wrong with that. Gavin's work has been instrumental, and he deserves a salary after working pro-bono for years. Other devs do as well. All the more reason to support the Foundation.

Well now is bitcoin just money to him, I think he is in a weird position were, the amount of money for bitcoin protocol shouldn't matter at all. I think once your in a foundation, your working on open source software and you need a salary is going against what the protocol should be. There no reason he can't make money on the side like he did, but if your working on the bitcoin protocol you should be doing it for nothing, or everyone gets paid the same, none of this one person gets a salary. Also if your a millionaire your not going to take a salary. This is a revolution idea and being a driving force should be good enough for him.

C) Gavin is a necessary part of the core Bitcoin development team, and doesn't want to work for free.

Then we all have failed, there shouldn't be one person that is "Necessary" to the development team, while Gavin has brought a lot to the table and helped moved us farther in the software, he should be expendable just like anyone else. This is kinda border line breaking a core value of a decentralized currency, if one person is "Necessary" to the development team. I really hope one day someone will build a full node to compete with bitcoin-qt but until then we are in this horrible postion according to software.

[prezbo]

The fact that the Foundation pays Gavin a salary now is reason enough to join as a member.

This is another reason I will not join. Your telling me Gavin needs a salary which tells me two scenarios

A) Gavin didn't believe in bitcoin so he never invested his money which at is time could have made him a millionaire, which would mean he doesn't need a salary.

B) Gavin is super greedy and wants a salary which really should go to all those developers equality that work hard not just him.

You misunderstand how opensource communities work. People usually do what they find interesting, and there is stuff nobody wants to do that needs to be done. That's why someone should be paid to (have to) deal with the "dirty stuff".

[Boussac]

Personally I support the Foundation and became a lifetime member.

The group still needs to prove itself with time, but even having the Foundation exist offered immense confidence to many investors and outsiders looking at our new ecosystem.

The fact that the Foundation pays Gavin a salary now is reason enough to join as a member.

+1
I joined just for that reason.

[smoothie]

Regarding A: So if Gavin did buy lots of coins and is currently a millionaire, he doesn't deserve a salary for all the work he's doing? And why should he divulge how many coins he has?

Regarding B: Everyone wants more money. I do, you do, Gavin does. There is nothing wrong with that. Gavin's work has been instrumental, and he deserves a salary after working pro-bono for years. Other devs do as well. All the more reason to support the Foundation.

Well now is bitcoin just money to him, I think he is in a weird position were, the amount of money for bitcoin protocol shouldn't matter at all. I think once your in a foundation, your working on open source software and you need a salary is going against what the protocol should be. There no reason he can't make money on the side like he did, but if your working on the bitcoin protocol you should be doing it for nothing, or everyone gets paid the same, none of this one person gets a salary. Also if your a millionaire your not going to take a salary. This is a revolution idea and being a driving force should be good enough for him.

C) Gavin is a necessary part of the core Bitcoin development team, and doesn't want to work for free.

Then we all have failed, there shouldn't be one person that is "Necessary" to the development team, while Gavin has brought a lot to the table and helped moved us farther in the software, he should be expendable just like anyone else. This is kinda border line breaking a core value of a decentralized currency, if one person is "Necessary" to the development team. I really hope one day someone will build a full node to compete with bitcoin-qt but until then we are in this horrible postion according to software.

+1 This this this

[Transisto]

Donating to the foundation is hedging against tragedy of the common.

Can be as a strategic investment or because you believe in the value for value model.

[twolifeinexile]

Regarding A: So if Gavin did buy lots of coins and is currently a millionaire, he doesn't deserve a salary for all the work he's doing? And why should he divulge how many coins he has?

Regarding B: Everyone wants more money. I do, you do, Gavin does. There is nothing wrong with that. Gavin's work has been instrumental, and he deserves a salary after working pro-bono for years. Other devs do as well. All the more reason to support the Foundation.

Well now is bitcoin just money to him, I think he is in a weird position were, the amount of money for bitcoin protocol shouldn't matter at all. I think once your in a foundation, your working on open source software and you need a salary is going against what the protocol should be. There no reason he can't make money on the side like he did, but if your working on the bitcoin protocol you should be doing it for nothing, or everyone gets paid the same, none of this one person gets a salary. Also if your a millionaire your not going to take a salary. This is a revolution idea and being a driving force should be good enough for him.

C) Gavin is a necessary part of the core Bitcoin development team, and doesn't want to work for free.

Then we all have failed, there shouldn't be one person that is "Necessary" to the development team, while Gavin has brought a lot to the table and helped moved us farther in the software, he should be expendable just like anyone else. This is kinda border line breaking a core value of a decentralized currency, if one person is "Necessary" to the development team. I really hope one day someone will build a full node to compete with bitcoin-qt but until then we are in this horrible postion according to software.

Could someone educate me a little bit about Gavin's role in bitcoin development?

[hazek]

Regarding A: So if Gavin did buy lots of coins and is currently a millionaire, he doesn't deserve a salary for all the work he's doing? And why should he divulge how many coins he has?

Regarding B: Everyone wants more money. I do, you do, Gavin does. There is nothing wrong with that. Gavin's work has been instrumental, and he deserves a salary after working pro-bono for years. Other devs do as well. All the more reason to support the Foundation.

Well now is bitcoin just money to him, I think he is in a weird position were, the amount of money for bitcoin protocol shouldn't matter at all. I think once your in a foundation, your working on open source software and you need a salary is going against what the protocol should be. There no reason he can't make money on the side like he did, but if your working on the bitcoin protocol you should be doing it for nothing, or everyone gets paid the same, none of this one person gets a salary. Also if your a millionaire your not going to take a salary. This is a revolution idea and being a driving force should be good enough for him.

C) Gavin is a necessary part of the core Bitcoin development team, and doesn't want to work for free.

Then we all have failed, there shouldn't be one person that is "Necessary" to the development team, while Gavin has brought a lot to the table and helped moved us farther in the software, he should be expendable just like anyone else. This is kinda border line breaking a core value of a decentralized currency, if one person is "Necessary" to the development team. I really hope one day someone will build a full node to compete with bitcoin-qt but until then we are in this horrible postion according to software.

I couldn't agree more with the above. If Gavin is indispensable to Bitcoin then that is highly concerning news to me.

[Kupsi]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

[LightRider]

The bus factor should be changed.

[gweedo]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

What if there is no other developer that can take over. What if Gavin isn't expendable, and that no other developer can take control of the codebase, well then sir welcome to non-decentralized currency and we are lying to everyone that uses bitcoin-qt/bitcoind.

[kiba]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

What if there is no other developer that can take over. What if Gavin isn't expendable, and that no other developer can take control of the codebase, well then sir welcome to non-decentralized currency and we are lying to everyone that uses bitcoin-qt/bitcoind.

Just because nobody have the skills like Gavin to develop the bitcoin protocol, doesn't mean it's centralized.

[Kupsi]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

What if there is no other developer that can take over. What if Gavin isn't expendable, and that no other developer can take control of the codebase, well then sir welcome to non-decentralized currency and we are lying to everyone that uses bitcoin-qt/bitcoind.

Then the other developers should press the alarm button tonight!

[gweedo]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

What if there is no other developer that can take over. What if Gavin isn't expendable, and that no other developer can take control of the codebase, well then sir welcome to non-decentralized currency and we are lying to everyone that uses bitcoin-qt/bitcoind.

Just because nobody have the skills like Gavin to develop the bitcoin protocol, doesn't mean it's centralized.

Yes it does, he has full control of it. Also what if the old "bus hits Gavin tomorrow" situation who would take over?

[Matthew N. Wright]

I believe that paying Gavin, so he can focus 100% on Bitcoin, is a good investment. That's why I support the foundation.

If Gavin disappeared, the foundation would probably have paid an other developer who was taking over his job. But I'm very happy that Gavin is the leader of the development group now.

What if there is no other developer that can take over. What if Gavin isn't expendable, and that no other developer can take control of the codebase, well then sir welcome to non-decentralized currency and we are lying to everyone that uses bitcoin-qt/bitcoind.

Just because nobody have the skills like Gavin to develop the bitcoin protocol, doesn't mean it's centralized.

Exactly. It'd be like saying that Science is centralized just because not everyone can understand it. You could of course argue that science kind of is centralized by the governments and institutions, but I'm not quite sure about that. One thing I have felt odd about is requiring just a handful of bitcoin developers to "approve" push requests on Github itself kind of makes it centralized, at least for the current blockchain if you ask me. I'm comfortable that nothing nefarious would get past the current community, but that is also true for small governments and look how that turned out. I can imagine that later on the slogan will become "Bitcoin, decentralized and anyone can edit the code* (Code editors must be pre-approved by a panel of the richest guys in Bitcoin)"

[hazek]

One thing I have felt odd about is requiring just a handful of bitcoin developers to "approve" push requests on Github itself kind of makes it centralized, at least for the current blockchain if you ask me.

As far as I understand it anyone can fork the code, change it, package it and freely distribute their version, no approval necessary by anyone. What does require approval is distribution through bitcoin.org. (someone please correct me if this isn't accurate)

[edd]

Gavin is not indispensable to bitcoin. He has contributed a lot to development but there isn't any reason to believe Bitcoin would fail without Gavin. Without Gavin, one or more individuals would most likely step up to fill his shoes. They would probably prefer to be paid, too.

[Matthew N. Wright]

One thing I have felt odd about is requiring just a handful of bitcoin developers to "approve" push requests on Github itself kind of makes it centralized, at least for the current blockchain if you ask me.

As far as I understand it anyone can fork the code, change it, package it and freely distribute their version, no approval necessary by anyone. What does require approval is distribution through bitcoin.org. (someone please correct me if this isn't accurate)

This is how I understood it too, but it begs the question: What is bitcoin.org representing? The technology or the current blockchain? If it's just representing the blockchain, then Gavin (and whomever else has permissions to accept PUSH requests) has total control of the entire network. If it's representing the technology that powers the blockchain, why not revamp the bitcoin.org website to allow people to publish their own versions of bitcoin, including alt coins, forked chains, etc? They wouldn't go anywhere (I guess), but like voting, it would at least in the sense of voting for elections, it would make people feel like they have a choice in the matter.

What do you think?

[hazek]

What do you think?

People can put up their own sites to promote their own Bitcoin client. And no, of course he has no control over the blockchain.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What do you think?

People can put up their own sites to promote their own Bitcoin client. And no, of course he has no control over the blockchain.

What I meant is, bitcoin is a technology (general) but also a particular implementation. Bitcoin.org is catering to the implementation. That in itself seems like a centralization of sorts.