Closed

[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.

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.

It may seem but it's not.

[Gavin Andresen]

RE: what's my role in the core team:  I try to do whatever needs to get done, that isn't getting done.  Today I'm cross-compiling the 0.8 release and testing it on Windows, trying to track down a crash-at-exit issue and an excessive-memory-use issue that seems to only happen on Windows.

When I'm not doing nitty-gritty things like that, I try to work on big, what-is-most-likely-to-make-Bitcoin-succeed problems.

RE: why pay me a salary?  "why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free?"

I told myself (and my wife) a couple of years ago that I wasn't going to sink dollars into Bitcoin-- that I'd sink time into it, and that I'd EARN bitcoins by starting a bitcoin-related startup.

Well, there's enough core development work to keep me busy full time. I wasn't very happy doing core development work AND trying to make ClearCoin happen; I'm happier when I can concentrate on one thing.  Besides, having my own startup introduces potential conflicts of interest (ClearCoin sparked conspiracy theories about why I push for multisig transactions so hard).

RE: what if I get hit by a bus?

Then the other core developers will carry on without me. I'm not indispensable.

RE: Why should you join the Foundation?  What is in it for you, personally?

That is a hard question, because you can "free ride" -- if we're successful making Bitcoin successful, everybody will benefit. Personally, I don't respect people with that kind of "I'm not going to do it because I'm sure somebody else will" attitude, and I think in the long run the people who take the risks and roll up their sleeves and do the work needed tend to win in the end.

Really, the main benefit of joining the Foundation is it is an organization full of people who are rolling up their sleeves and doing the work. If you're smart, you'll realize that networking with those types of people is to your long-term benefit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Gavin: I think I may have asked this previously ... do you have a donation address?

(One for those of us who would just like to drop a few coins into your own pocket now and then, without signing up to anything.) Thnx.

Edit: you can PM it to me if you would like to keep it private.

[paraipan]

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.

+1 but...

And there is a big BUT, we have to have some incentives system in place for the main developers, the ones that really do the hard work like Gavin and team, because if we don't we're being at risk of having the highest bidders push changes over time and corrupt the system from within, always in their own interest.

I'm not part of the Foundation, but seeing how things are taking course lately I'm thinking seriously about paying my subscription and support the developers for their awesome work. Bitcoin has just started to gain traction but allot has to be done to gain mainstream adoption, and we will surely not be there real soon if we're scattered all around. I remember someone's comment from these forums: voluntarily joining forces is how free market gets things done, and is good.


Edit: I just signed up for a year, hope I support the devs and learn something useful too.

[SgtSpike]

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 position according to software.

Fair enough. How about:
D) Gavin is greatly encouraged through monetary incentive to work harder, longer, and faster on various fixes and features for Bitcoin-QT.  Instead of things taking months or years to get fixed by whomever feels like they want to tackle it in their spare time, the paid full-time developer Gavin can address problems in days or weeks instead.  And given that the foundation believes he is the best/most efficient/most trustworthy coder on the QT project, he gets paid.

Another way of going about it might be to offer bounties on various bugfixes and features, but how do you know that the person implementing the fix is trustworthy?  What happens when their sloppy coding results in more bugs found down the line?  What if their documentation is poor?  Etc, etc.

Mozilla pays workers to work on their software, but many people also make their own contributions on a voluntary basis.  How does that differ from this current situation in Bitcoin?  Gavin is a paid lead developer, and everyone else can contribute at their leisure on a voluntary basis.

[gweedo]

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 position according to software.

Fair enough. How about:
D) Gavin is greatly encouraged through monetary incentive to work harder, longer, and faster on various fixes and features for Bitcoin-QT.  Instead of things taking months or years to get fixed by whomever feels like they want to tackle it in their spare time, the paid full-time developer Gavin can address problems in days or weeks instead.  And given that the foundation believes he is the best/most efficient/most trustworthy coder on the QT project, he gets paid.

Another way of going about it might be to offer bounties on various bugfixes and features, but how do you know that the person implementing the fix is trustworthy?  What happens when their sloppy coding results in more bugs found down the line?  What if their documentation is poor?  Etc, etc.

Mozilla pays workers to work on their software, but many people also make their own contributions on a voluntary basis.  How does that differ from this current situation in Bitcoin?  Gavin is a paid lead developer, and everyone else can contribute at their leisure on a voluntary basis.

Ohhh and you know how long thing would take if he wasn't getting paid... I am just saying there like 10 core developers between them and there time, they couldn't handle the software. I just think that one person handling the lead on such a revolutionary idea is bad news. Remember I want to run a full node, currently there is no other option. I think this is classic monopoly and if Gavin was unable to do his job tomorrow, bitcoin would greatly stuffer, we need more lead developers, maybe we can get 3 people on board I feel little bit better. In reality one person that relied on this heavy in this much a decentralized way, is insanity!

Also I never talked about bounties, actually I would disagree with a bounties model, that code is usually rushed and very buggy. I think people that take on the job of bitcoin-qt want to give something back. Hey I knew C++ and python at the level I know other languages I would be right there helping sadly I can't.

Mozilla, makes a browser... i don't see any parallel and I think your miss understood why I disagree with Gavin getting paid. I feel like it is giving too much power to on person, which it is cause no ONE has said an actual person's name IF Gavin was unable to do bitcoins anymore.

[gweedo]

RE: what if I get hit by a bus?

Then the other core developers will carry on without me. I'm not indispensable.

I think we need an actual name, if you leave bitcoins for whatever reason I think there should be a backup person, this is only going to lead to confusion on the forums and could be the thing, that could bring bitcoins from $16 right back to $5 or even $2.

[Spekulatius]

In case of the bus scenario: Let the core team decide among them and elect one to take his job! Otherwise we'll have some weird dynasty up there.

[gweedo]

In case of the bus scenario: Let the core team decide among them and elect one to take his job! Otherwise we'll have some weird dynasty up there.

But who on the core team has the knowledge of the codebase like Gavin? That is what we trying to figure out... Think about if Gavin can't do bitcoins who will take over? He isn't expendable! There is no straight answer to this...

[marcus_of_augustus]

In case of the bus scenario: Let the core team decide among them and elect one to take his job! Otherwise we'll have some weird dynasty up there.

But who on the core team has the knowledge of the codebase like Gavin? That is what we trying to figure out... Think about if Gavin can't do bitcoins who will take over? He isn't expendable! There is no straight answer to this...

You're making a mountain out of a molehill (not the first time either). There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head who could lead the devs quite happily ... and if it really comes down to it I imagine Satoshi would reappear, the same, though changed.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

But who on the core team has the knowledge of the codebase like Gavin? That is what we trying to figure out... Think about if Gavin can't do bitcoins who will take over? He isn't expendable! There is no straight answer to this...

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this for a number of reasons.

• I've seen key superstar developers that looked irreplaceable leave many important commercial software products.  They were always replaced successfully, even if it took their successors a little while to get up to speed at the same level of proficiency.  For interesting projects, there will always be smart people eager to step up to the plate.  And Bitcoin is definitely interesting.
• Lots of very smart and capable developers are working on the Bitcoin client and related projects right this instant, and several of them could have the right skillset to replace Gavin.  Some might visit bitcointalk frequently, but others work with low publicity or visibility.  Subscribe to the development mailing list on sourceforege to get a fuller picture of development activity.
• Retroactively imagine the panic you would've felt if you'd known Satoshi was leaving for good.  If anyone was irreplaceable, it was him.  And yet, things have turned out fine.

Having said all this, I don't want to be misunderstood, Gavin is a very valuable asset, I like his style, and I hope he sticks around for a long time.

[gweedo]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill (not the first time either). There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head who could lead the devs quite happily ... and if it really comes down to it I imagine Satoshi would reappear, the same, though changed.

I guess legit concerns I should just keep to myself... Sorry let me go and talk about how great the foundation is... Really then you insult my intelligences with this statement.

But who on the core team has the knowledge of the codebase like Gavin? That is what we trying to figure out... Think about if Gavin can't do bitcoins who will take over? He isn't expendable! There is no straight answer to this...

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this for a number of reasons.

• I've seen key superstar developers that looked irreplaceable leave many important commercial software products.  They were always replaced successfully, even if it took their successors a little while to get up to speed at the same level of proficiency.  For interesting projects, there will always be smart people eager to step up to the plate.  And Bitcoin is definitely interesting.
• Lots of very smart and capable developers are working on the Bitcoin client and related projects right this instant, and several of them could have the right skillset to replace Gavin.  Some might visit bitcointalk frequently, but others work with low publicity or visibility.  Subscribe to the development mailing list on sourceforege to get a fuller picture of development activity.
• Retroactively imagine the panic you would've felt if you'd known Satoshi was leaving for good.  If anyone was irreplaceable, it was him.  And yet, things have turned out fine.

Having said all this, I don't want to be misunderstood, Gavin is a very valuable asset, I like his style, and I hope he sticks around for a long time.

I am not losing sleep, but this should be something that is talked about. I think most of the dev team is very able to pick up the program today. I think more of the Gavin is a strong entity in the bitcoin world and being the lead developer of the official bitcoin and only full node gives him a lot of power.


I think a lot of people are misunderstood, if a couple people are saying Gavin is not an expendable person on the bitcoin project, then that means this experiment was a fail. Soon we will either have to have a spilt of the official bitcoin application or a new full node, to defeat this monopoly.

[finway]

I've joined, and i think it's worthy.

[clone4501]

I've joined, and i think it's worthy.

I joined, too.

[atomium]

RE: what's my role in the core team:  I try to do whatever needs to get done, that isn't getting done.  Today I'm cross-compiling the 0.8 release and testing it on Windows, trying to track down a crash-at-exit issue and an excessive-memory-use issue that seems to only happen on Windows.

When I'm not doing nitty-gritty things like that, I try to work on big, what-is-most-likely-to-make-Bitcoin-succeed problems.

RE: why pay me a salary?  "why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free?"

I told myself (and my wife) a couple of years ago that I wasn't going to sink dollars into Bitcoin-- that I'd sink time into it, and that I'd EARN bitcoins by starting a bitcoin-related startup.

Well, there's enough core development work to keep me busy full time. I wasn't very happy doing core development work AND trying to make ClearCoin happen; I'm happier when I can concentrate on one thing.  Besides, having my own startup introduces potential conflicts of interest (ClearCoin sparked conspiracy theories about why I push for multisig transactions so hard).

RE: what if I get hit by a bus?

Then the other core developers will carry on without me. I'm not indispensable.

RE: Why should you join the Foundation?  What is in it for you, personally?

That is a hard question, because you can "free ride" -- if we're successful making Bitcoin successful, everybody will benefit. Personally, I don't respect people with that kind of "I'm not going to do it because I'm sure somebody else will" attitude, and I think in the long run the people who take the risks and roll up their sleeves and do the work needed tend to win in the end.

Really, the main benefit of joining the Foundation is it is an organization full of people who are rolling up their sleeves and doing the work. If you're smart, you'll realize that networking with those types of people is to your long-term benefit.

Hey Gavin,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to all the questions everyone has brought up in this thread, it has really made everyone realize the reality of the foundation and how important the role of you and your team are to this community. Although some may not agree, we are all entitled to our own opinions, either way I came to the final decision of joining the foundation as a lifetime member. Thank you.

[constitution]

Short and sweet answer, NO.

[prezbo]

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 position according to software.

Fair enough. How about:
D) Gavin is greatly encouraged through monetary incentive to work harder, longer, and faster on various fixes and features for Bitcoin-QT.  Instead of things taking months or years to get fixed by whomever feels like they want to tackle it in their spare time, the paid full-time developer Gavin can address problems in days or weeks instead.  And given that the foundation believes he is the best/most efficient/most trustworthy coder on the QT project, he gets paid.

Another way of going about it might be to offer bounties on various bugfixes and features, but how do you know that the person implementing the fix is trustworthy?  What happens when their sloppy coding results in more bugs found down the line?  What if their documentation is poor?  Etc, etc.

Mozilla pays workers to work on their software, but many people also make their own contributions on a voluntary basis.  How does that differ from this current situation in Bitcoin?  Gavin is a paid lead developer, and everyone else can contribute at their leisure on a voluntary basis.

Ohhh and you know how long thing would take if he wasn't getting paid... I am just saying there like 10 core developers between them and there time, they couldn't handle the software. I just think that one person handling the lead on such a revolutionary idea is bad news. Remember I want to run a full node, currently there is no other option. I think this is classic monopoly and if Gavin was unable to do his job tomorrow, bitcoin would greatly stuffer, we need more lead developers, maybe we can get 3 people on board I feel little bit better. In reality one person that relied on this heavy in this much a decentralized way, is insanity!

Also I never talked about bounties, actually I would disagree with a bounties model, that code is usually rushed and very buggy. I think people that take on the job of bitcoin-qt want to give something back. Hey I knew C++ and python at the level I know other languages I would be right there helping sadly I can't.

Mozilla, makes a browser... i don't see any parallel and I think your miss understood why I disagree with Gavin getting paid. I feel like it is giving too much power to on person, which it is cause no ONE has said an actual person's name IF Gavin was unable to do bitcoins anymore.

You're contradicting yourself. First you're against developers getting paid, then you whine how Gavin isn't expendable and there is no one to take his place. Well, why would there be if people can have well paying jobs instead of working on bitcoin code for free? At least someone needs to be paid to deal with the stuff other people don't want to. Gavin is the most appropriate candidate for the job. Because of people like you that don't want to contribute, there (probably) isn't enough money to hire more developers and make it more "decentralized".

[The_Duke]

either way I came to the final decision of joining the foundation as a lifetime member. Thank you.

Gavin's bank account says thank you

[gweedo]

You're contradicting yourself. First you're against developers getting paid, then you whine how Gavin isn't expendable and there is no one to take his place. Well, why would there be if people can have well paying jobs instead of working on bitcoin code for free? At least someone needs to be paid to deal with the stuff other people don't want to. Gavin is the most appropriate candidate for the job. Because of people like you that don't want to contribute, there (probably) isn't enough money to hire more developers and make it more "decentralized".

I am not against any developer getting paid, but we are blurring the lines of paying one person over the others not getting paid and risking that one person can be there to do bitcoins for a long time, backups are always good. No one is discounting Gavin's experience and skill set, the entire community respects that aspect of him. Also as Gavin did say he has not spend and will not spend one dollar on any bitcoins. Sadly I find that a little offensive cause you have a chance to be worth a lot of money yet you don't invest in it. I just want to make sure the software I use will always get top of the line especially since it deals with a lot of money. If you don't feel that way then I can't help you there. That is the one thing about this forum I will always hate, asking questions and bring up questions about issues everyone takes for granted is looked at as a troll.

Also I will not contribute to a foundation that doesn't have the same views (PM me if you want the reasons why the foundation is not worthy of my contributions) as me is not hindering the software. What is a hinder is one person knowing too much about the entire codebase and no one else stepping up and creating another full node software to compete with this. There always needs checks and balances and this one things that is not decentralized and doesn't have the correct checks.

[kiba]

Also I will not contribute to a foundation that doesn't have the same views (PM me if you want the reasons why the foundation is not worthy of my contributions) as me is not hindering the software. What is a hinder is one person knowing too much about the entire codebase and no one else stepping up and creating another full node software to compete with this. There always needs checks and balances and this one things that is not decentralized and doesn't have the correct checks.

The problem with decentralization and extreme resiliency is that it is EXPENSIVE. It is EXPENSIVE to educate a developer into knowing the codebase and working on it fulltime. It is EXPENSIVE to build a completely separate node software when it can be concentrated into one project. It is EXPENSIVE to make bitcoin totally resilient against any governmental attacks, any privacy-breaking attempt, any bugs in the system.

Security is expensive. Think of all the locks, the policemen, the soldiers, military R&D, mining rigs, and all the bank guards in the world. Now think of the money that could be spent on something more useful and relevant to our lives if everyone is a goodyshoes.

So you want resiliency and security from "gavin dies, we're screwed"? Well, are you willing to pay for the cost or providing said resiliency and security? It seems that you are bent on decentralization, resiliency, and security at any cost.

There are no such things as a free lunch.