Bitcoin’s longest-serving Lead Maintainer calls it quits, names no successor

[Fortify]

Bitcoin’s top developer and Lead Maintainer, Wladimir van der Laan, has confirmed that he’s retiring. Van der Laan is the second successor to Satoshi Nakamoto and is one of the few people in the world with final commit access to Bitcoin Core’s GitHub.

this is not a good look for bitcoin. luckily the joe bitcoin user will have no idea about any of this and blissfully continue using bitcoin to pay for a cup of coffee.

It could have a bit of a negative effect on the value once this gets more mainstream knowledge, which kind of shows a weakness that maybe hasn't been factored in properly to cryptocurrency to date. It probably effects Bitcoin much more than any other cryptocoin, but other coins will undoubtedly be affected by the knock on action of this. The continuity of the developers in the background is extremely important, even if it is a relatively stable platform, because they have vast power over the future direction of Bitcoin and can implement decisions that affect the money in everyones wallet. Much like you see in a company which loses a strong manager, it can easily start to wobble after that.

[DooMAD]

doomad.. you and a certain few people for years have been buddy playing each other, defending each other chatting to each other kiss assing each other all for the same warped fantasy.
the same warped fantasy that harms bitcoin

Wrong.  You are the lone, unhinged lunatic with a horrendous and disturbing notion of what Bitcoin supposedly ought to be (but never will be).  You perceive anyone who doesn't share your reprehensible and authoritarian views as "buddy buddy" because none of us can come close to understanding your fractured psyche and how you so consistently and unrelentingly misperceive the world and get it all twisted in your head to be some sort of sinister conspiracy.  All the while, some cautious, sensible and pragmatic developers continue to act in the best interests of the Bitcoin network/protocol, but all you can do is screech about inane nonsense you should have gotten the fuck over over 6 years ago.  Just accept that you have some very, VERY niche views that no other person on this planet is special enough in the brain to share with you.  Or just choke on your own tongue, already.  Either way, this shit's getting tiresome.

not having an independant thought

Not independent from reality, like you, no.  I like my thoughts grounded in sanity, thank you.  You should give it a try some time.

anyway back to the topic that a certain person does not want publicised. yet is well documented and easy to research

the facts about history of satoshi passing the project to gavin who passed it to(drama involved) wlad. is well documented and researchable..  
guess what doomad and chums.. you might want to hide it.. but

the github repo that is now core controlled was created by gavin..(satoshi used a different code repository on a different site)
yep its a fact of history that can be found in hard data..

Fine.  How about you and I both shut up now and we'll run a little experiment?  

******

I freely encourage everyone reading here to look into this repository matter (assuming they aren't already familiar with it) and form an opinion on their own.  Then write here in this topic what your opinion is.  I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone other than franky1 perceives it as an issue.  Let's put it to the test and see how controversial it really is.  Thoughts, anyone?  

******

[dragonvslinux]

P.S. Due to the news of the Tornado Cash developer getting arrested, I wouldn't totally rule out the chances that he hopefully just is retiring under his name while continuing to develop under a pseudonym.

Btw, I'm not totally convinced that developer was arrested solely for being a dev. Tornado Cash were also taking a % for mixing transactions, so while it's easy to think that a dev was arrested for being an open source developer (which is against US law), it's much more likely that he was receiving a % of profit from these mixed funds - therefore charged for completely different reasons as it were, while being a dev.

I don't have anything to substantiate these claims, but there's a difference from being arrested for being an open source dev, then being an individual profiting from money laundering it seems. While there are protections in place for open source developers, there aren't many protections from directly profiting from any potential money laundering it seems.  Just saying...

[franky1]

as a point that doomad wants to avoid

here are words from Wlad himself of the drama of how he became maintainer due to the gavin drama .. all of which did not happen in 2011 but much later

https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

[coolcoinz]

though lessons should be learned to not have bitcoin as a central point, which even core an wlad know they are central points.
we need to decentralise more so there is no reliance on one github/maintainer. especially need to avoid those in a near central point to not be funded majority by one central funder to ensure that bitcoin cannot be controlled

I agree we should keep it decentralized as much as possible, although I doubt submitting code to github for all to see is a step towards centralization.

Bitcoin is meant to outlive Satoshi, Van der Laan, and everyone who writes code for it today. Bitcoin is a community, old people leave, new people come. So this is actually very good for Bitcoin, it will demonstrate that its development has no critical centralization, unlike Ethereum, where Vitalik is the owner of the code and can do whatever he wants.

Exactly! People come and go, but ideas and tools continue to help future generations. We can't expect someone who's been coding since the 80s to keep doing it 40 years later. People need a break, need to focus on their family and retirement. It was meant to happen sooner or later. I think there were some articles about him quitting months ago, so it's not a sudden change of heart.

[franky1]

though lessons should be learned to not have bitcoin as a central point, which even core an wlad know they are central points.
we need to decentralise more so there is no reliance on one github/maintainer. especially need to avoid those in a near central point to not be funded majority by one central funder to ensure that bitcoin cannot be controlled

I agree we should keep it decentralized as much as possible, although I doubt submitting code to github for all to see is a step towards centralization.

tornadocash github repo got took down due to international sanctions drama
..

so if everyone is relying on one github repo of one reference client. then its a central point. even wlad as the main maintainer of that central CORE point knows and admits to it being so
even as far back as 2015 he was talking about how core also was and has been seen as a controlling point where they decide who gets in and out

he described it as transparent code, but controlled decisions of who is allowed in

However Bitcoin Core is a software project run by a team of people working together, on an open source basis. People who choose for themselves who they want to work with, and who they don’t want to work with.

There comes a point when it is time to break ties with certain individuals which were formative in the beginning but have, over time, ossified and even come to be seen as a toxic influence. Especially if they haven’t partaken in active development for a long time.

and more recently he last year at announcing his retirement admitted how core got too centralised and how he foresee how different implementations should now be allowed to thrive
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

[larry_vw_1955]

That's unfortunate and I wish him the best, but saying that "this is not a good look for bitcoin" is quite an over-reaction. It's not like he's the only Bitcoin developer.

Well, it just kind of airs some of bitcoin's dirty laundry so to speak. People like to think of bitcoin as being totally decentralized but if you look at the development process it is not.

Van der Laan has not named any direct successors, instead hoping that his departure will help Bitcoin become more decentralized. His ultimate hope is that Bitcoin will decentralize Satoshi’s GitHub commit access key to such an extent that Bitcoin no longer needs an official Lead Maintainer.


As long as Bitcoin relies on a centralized service like Github then that's a centralized service as we all know. Those can be taken down by the government or go offline for any other reason. I would have thought that Bitcoin would want to have a decentralized software development model too that's run by some DAO (https://www.investopedia.com/tech/what-dao/) where everyone casts votes on additions or modifications to the software. Then it would be decentralized. Like have a blockchain that runs just for storing the bitcoin core software. Then people wouldn't need to download core from a centralized website.

More recently, he floated the possibility of switching ownership of Bitcoincore.org to an organization rather than a single owner. He also mentioned encouraging others to set up mirrors for Bitcoin Core’s software. He wants Bitcoin to decentralize away from Bitcoincore.org, one of the few places people download the latest version of Bitcoin’s software.


His plan included the possibility of decentralizing development duties, moving away from reliance on GitHub to host the code, and finding someone else to send release candidate mails to the official email lists for Bitcoin developers, bitcoin-dev and bitcoin-core-dev.


At least he is being honest about the issues he sees with Bitcoin and I appreciate him for that.

Bitcoin’s top developer and Lead Maintainer, Wladimir van der Laan, has confirmed that he’s retiring. Van der Laan is the second successor to Satoshi Nakamoto and is one of the few people in the world with final commit access to Bitcoin Core’s GitHub.

Maybe post your source? https://protos.com/bitcoins-longest-serving-lead-maintainer-calls-it-quits-names-no-successor/

Yes, that's the article. I never heard of him before reading that. But it seems like he had a thankless job...

[franky1]

As long as Bitcoin relies on a centralized service like Github then that's a centralized service as we all know. Those can be taken down by the government or go offline for any other reason. I would have thought that Bitcoin would want to have a decentralized software development model too that's run by some DAO (https://www.investopedia.com/tech/what-dao/) where everyone casts votes on additions or modifications to the software. Then it would be decentralized. Like have a blockchain that runs just for storing the bitcoin core software. Then people wouldn't need to download core from a centralized website.

the way bitcoin used to work was that there were different implementations, and when there was a proposal they all coded their implementations and the network upgraded to activate the proposal once majority had the code to allow the activation..
(this is where blockchains invention solved the 'byzantine generals problem')

things changed. where core became the repo. the proposal centre where core developed the code and then people downloaded core to vote it in and then if it activated. then other lower grade wallets would then change their code to then be fully compliant.
(this is where core became commander-and-chief. in a follow the leader style network structure (no longer caring about the byzantine generals. because all generals were core )

what now happens is if anyone has idea's that dont follow the core roadmap. they are treated as opposition/ competitors. where by if they even got close to a majority against the core roadmap they were treated as a threat to cores plan. and were set as a fork proposal to turn into a altcoin rather than a bitcoin feature upgrade.

there was alot of drama in 2014-17 in this regard(REKT era). and it was this era where core decided who they wanted in "their" github/community and who they didnt (even wlad admits to this now(first hearne, then gavin the garzik))
which ended up in about 2016-2017 with core becoming the defacto solo "reference client" at the top of the hierarchy and everything else held as inferior lesser quality wallets that just followed cores lead, where anyone trying to establish themselves as a "reference clinet" offering proposals were treated as the enemy.

..
it appears that Wlad as of last year wants to help push 'libbitcoin' as the main consensus reference for the proper consensus rules and prime engine /ruleset of bitcoin. where other brands can then do their own thing with the stuff that handles the users own control of data on their local PC's like how they store data on hard drives of validate transactions before during and after peer-to-peer data streaming between each other

which hopefully should see core hierarchy disappear. and instead become just a brand of many brands that all work co-operatively with each other but with separate brands, repositories, dev teams so that there is no central point of failure
(well as long as libbitcoin and other brands are not grabbed up and tied into the DGC portfolio to still be controlled by a single sponsor of control.. only time can tell)

[BlackHatCoiner]

https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

And yet, there's nothing wrong with this decision. Gavin was somewhat a scum; supporting a provably lying bastard who says he's Satoshi[1], besides being inactive since 2011, is a red flag. And no, crying out later and demanding forgiveness doesn't water down things[2]. Every person with minimum intelligence could have done this "research" and reach to the same conclusion, that he's a passive liar. 

[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
[2] https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

I freely encourage everyone reading here to look into this repository matter (assuming they aren't already familiar with it) and form an opinion on their own.  Then write here in this topic what your opinion is.  I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone other than franky1 perceives it as an issue.  Let's put it to the test and see how controversial it really is.  Thoughts, anyone?

Perceive what an issue? The fact that repositories have lead maintainers or that they don't deserve this position? I have no problem with this matter either way, though.

[larry_vw_1955]

https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

And yet, there's nothing wrong with this decision. Gavin was somewhat a scum; supporting a provably lying bastard who says he's Satoshi[1], besides being inactive since 2011, is a red flag. And no, crying out later and demanding forgiveness doesn't water down things[2]. Every person with minimum intelligence could have done this "research" and reach to the same conclusion, that he's a passive liar. 

[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
[2] https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

I freely encourage everyone reading here to look into this repository matter (assuming they aren't already familiar with it) and form an opinion on their own.  Then write here in this topic what your opinion is.  I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone other than franky1 perceives it as an issue.  Let's put it to the test and see how controversial it really is.  Thoughts, anyone?

Perceive what an issue? The fact that repositories have lead maintainers or that they don't deserve this position? I have no problem with this matter either way, though.

Well I've thought about it some and my conclusion is that bitcoin has alot of work ahead for it if they are going to have to depend on "lead maintainers" forever. It's not clear to me that people can be trusted forever. But if bitcoin is going to be changing hands every 10 years or less well, that's alot of chances for someone to really screw things up. Put in some malicious code. Destroy the blockchain.

So my conclusion is that because bitcoin can't freeze its code base like a smart contract, it will always have a weakness in that it has to depend on people to maintain it over the years. that's a really bad thing. but because bitcoin might have bugs, you can't just freeze it into a smart contract. or else it might explode down the line and all go to 0. but the downside to that is of course, having to depend on humans.

more work should probably be put into ensuring the existing code has no bugs than making new features that 90% of people will probably never need or use. How many average bitcoin users ever heard of multisig? How many ever used it? Probably none. So what you do is get your existing code to a point where it has no more bugs and lock it down. Turn it into a smart contract that can never be changed. Then no one has to spend anymore time on developing it and risking introducing new bugs and everyone can be sure that bitcoin will always function how it has in the past. no changes to anything. everyone can then just use bitcoin and move on to other things as far as other projects that do other things. other than just sending money electronically.

as far as bitcoincore.org not being put into the hands of some organization well i don't think that's the main issue anyway. someone could hack bitcoincore.org, replace the binaries with hacked versions and people would download it, install it and maybe they might lose some bitcoin. the solution to that is not having more mirror websites because the same thing could happen to them including people putting up fake mirror sites with bad versions of the software. along with fake hashes and sigs.

[DooMAD]

Well I've thought about it some and my conclusion is that bitcoin has alot of work ahead for it if they are going to have to depend on "lead maintainers" forever. It's not clear to me that people can be trusted forever. But if bitcoin is going to be changing hands every 10 years or less well, that's alot of chances for someone to really screw things up. Put in some malicious code. Destroy the blockchain.

That's less of an issue than you think.  Everything is checked carefully by multiple devs before changes are merged.  And as for "destroying the blockchain", the consensus mechanism which is effectively baked into Bitcoin would prevent that.  Any breaches of consensus rules that would involve the creation of invalid blocks, just means that anyone using the new and malicious/buggy software would simply be forked off the network.  All users on any older versions of the software would simply ignore such illegitimate blocks.  

[BlackHatCoiner]

more work should probably be put into ensuring the existing code has no bugs than making new features that 90% of people will probably never need or use. How many average bitcoin users ever heard of multisig? How many ever used it? Probably none.

Probably millions. Have you forgotten that multi-sig is the basis of the Lightning Network? If there aren't millions now, there will be. The world can't fit in 1MB blocks. If we'll have serious adoption within the next 8-10 years, it'll happen in second layer solutions.

someone could hack bitcoincore.org, replace the binaries with hacked versions and people would download it, install it and maybe they might lose some bitcoin.

So verify the signatures of your binaries. That's what all should do, and are warned so. Mirrors don't have to do with ensuring software integrity, but with source code and binaries availability.

I don't answer to your other concerns, because others did.

[goldkingcoiner]

Bitcoin is and always will be a community driven project. If someone in the community retires, there will be someone else to take his place. I see no problem here. The only true way Bitcoin can or ever will die is if every single miner, every single Hodler and every single believer of Bitcoin were to change their minds overnight. And even then you would still have to stop the flow of new Bitcoiners and remove all the Bitcoin PR from the internet.

Basically I am saying it is impossible. And news like this only serves as temporary shorting opportunities for whales. And trust me, they love FUD like this. Because they know that this is only a temporary "scare".

[franky1]

https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

And yet, there's nothing wrong with this decision. Gavin was somewhat a scum; supporting a provably lying bastard who says he's Satoshi[1], besides being inactive since 2011, is a red flag. And no, crying out later and demanding forgiveness doesn't water down things[2]. Every person with minimum intelligence could have done this "research" and reach to the same conclusion, that he's a passive liar.  

this is not about human defence or offence(social drama bureaucracy) this is about trying to get a better understanding of the history of bitcoin events, based on hard data(protocol)
(subtle hint to blackhatcoiners latest avatar (protocol over bureaucracy))

not defending gavin. this is about getting facts right based on actual easily available data

firstly yes he did say that scammer CSW was an inventor and well we all know that not to be the case.
emphasis this next bit is not defending gavin. but an opinion thats not from the playgrounds of exaggerations and social drama queening and instead more logical (than some can manage to think).
my opinion was that gavin was retiring anyway and just wanted a mega pay day exit. so took whatever money he could from what ever source was offering out money and he could not give a crap about what it done to his reputation.

CSW is ultimate scum. but i feel gavin was leaving anyway and just wanted to get paid

but one correction on your part is that, gavin actually did more coding then you think between 2011-2015
maybe you like pretty pictures and videos instead of walls of text heck
so here is a easy proof your claims of in-activity are incorrect (in a format even you can see)
https://youtu.be/dTILX-_JzTs?t=172

i even set the video link at the start of 2012 so you dont even have to watch through 2011 the part where you think he was active. and instead the video begins when you think(wrongly) that he was inactive.. enjoy. it might enlighten you. and i dont me the colourful light show the video displays. i mean the proof that what you got told by someone else about inactivity. is not as it seems
https://youtu.be/dTILX-_JzTs?t=172

it pays to do research
its better to actually know what is really going on and do research. to atleast stay on track with what real data shows. rather than use personal social drama to then try to rewrite history.
yes gavin ruined his reputation. but he actually was more involved in bitcoin than certain people want to be mentioned

this is not about defending him. its about fact of who was involved for how long and how hard data can debunk the social drama crap certain people play.

yes he ruined his rep using lies for a pay day retirement farewell
but he was also active coder 2012-15
just to get things straight

..
blackhatcoiner
you changed your avatar to "protocol over bureaucracy" i hope that means from now on you are ready to use actual data and code instead of social drama
i hope to from this date see a new change in your efforts and posts that no longer play the bureacracy social drama playing cards you played before this date

let today be a new start for you. and if you do start from today to not play the bureaucracy cards you played, i will stop insulting you (this goes for your buddies too, should they be ready to change their ways)

[DigitalMonk]

Why Dr Wlad  van der Laan is quiting ?  What is the real story ?  I want to know from his own statements why he is resigning ?  Has he achieved what he wanted to achieve ?  Or has he failed to achieved, what he wanted to achieve ?

If he tell the truth that will become a real history in the Bitcoin Space. But if he does not tell the truth why he is leaving without handing over the "Bitcoin Torch" to some one who is worthy to carry the Bitcoin Torch  is not good things to do.

I think he should tell the truth, the reason he is leaving.

[DaveF]

I think he should tell the truth, the reason he is leaving.

He said he was leaving 18 months ago:

https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

I think that is a good amount of time to wind down what he was involved in and pass a lot of knowledge to others.
As others have said it's really that big a deal, there are plenty of others involved in BTC someone who is not been doing it for so long and has been planning to leave.

It's not like he did a mike drop and walked off stage.

-Dave

[mindrust]

Bitcoin’s top developer and Lead Maintainer, Wladimir van der Laan, has confirmed that he’s retiring. Van der Laan is the second successor to Satoshi Nakamoto and is one of the few people in the world with final commit access to Bitcoin Core’s GitHub.

this is not a good look for bitcoin. luckily the joe bitcoin user will have no idea about any of this and blissfully continue using bitcoin to pay for a cup of coffee.

Why isn’t it a good look for bitcoin? Bitcoin’s success is not dependent on other people anymore. There will always be someone else who is going to maintain/develop bitcoin when somebody quits. Bitcoin is decentalized. Even if all the devs quit right now, bitcoin would still survive.

Everybody needs his/her retirement at some point. Nobody can work forever. We should thank and congratulate him. We can’t do anything else.

[BlackHatCoiner]

CSW is ultimate scum. but i feel gavin was leaving anyway and just wanted to get paid

Yeah, that's what I meant with "scum".

yes gavin ruined his reputation. but he actually was more involved in bitcoin than certain people want to be mentioned

Didn't know he was working on it that much from 2011-2015, thanks. But, he did was kinda inactive compared with others.

you changed your avatar to "protocol over bureaucracy" i hope that means from now on you are ready to use actual data and code instead of social drama

What have I been doing so far? I have never for once supported social drama over actual data. Cut the strawman.

[larry_vw_1955]

more work should probably be put into ensuring the existing code has no bugs than making new features that 90% of people will probably never need or use. How many average bitcoin users ever heard of multisig? How many ever used it? Probably none.

Probably millions. Have you forgotten that multi-sig is the basis of the Lightning Network? If there aren't millions now, there will be. The world can't fit in 1MB blocks. If we'll have serious adoption within the next 8-10 years, it'll happen in second layer solutions.

i mean using multisig directly not without realizing it. most users just use a bitcoin software wallet most of which do not do multisig how many people really use multisig directly? probably not many people. lightning i'm not sure but it seems like an overcomplicated thing and just makes bitcoin more confusing to people. but whatever.

someone could hack bitcoincore.org, replace the binaries with hacked versions and people would download it, install it and maybe they might lose some bitcoin.

So verify the signatures of your binaries. That's what all should do, and are warned so. Mirrors don't have to do with ensuring software integrity, but with source code and binaries availability.

so with a hacked version of bitcoin core, they would create a fake website and create the hashes and fake signatures for the file. so when you download it, check the hash and check the signature it will all check out. they'll also provide you with the public key or fingerprint of the signer. so when you add that person to your keyring and check the signature, it's gonna check out just fine.

so if you been paying attention, that's why i had said they need a new way of distributing bitcoin core. one that is decentralized and trustless. until then bitcoin isn't fully decentralized if you have to download it from some website.

Why isn’t it a good look for bitcoin?

Because he seemed somewhat disgruntled and leaving with a somewhat bad taste in his mouth. Was he even paid? Or he just did everything for free? If he did everything for free, he got taken advantage of. Used and spit out.

Bitcoin’s success is not dependent on other people anymore.

Why not? If people stopped using bitcoin then it would be worthless. If they stopped putting it on websites so others could download it, then bitcoin couldn't grow. If smart people like van der Laan didn't keep putting in their time and energy into maitaining it, presumably that would be a disaster and bitcoin would die a slow death. So yeah it depends on other people but what if it didn't have to? Wouldn't that be better?

That's why I suggested bitcoin should be a smart contract so that the smart contract can't be changed. No one would ever have to touch the code again. People could just use it and that's it! That's the only way that bitcoin wouldn't need to be "dependent on other people anymore".

There will always be someone else who is going to maintain/develop bitcoin when somebody quits.

How do you know that? Can you prove it?

Bitcoin is decentalized. Even if all the devs quit right now, bitcoin would still survive.

Bitcoin software distribution is not decentralized or trustless. neither is its development model but it's harder to do that in such a manner maybe not even possible.
 

Everybody needs his/her retirement at some point. Nobody can work forever. We should thank and congratulate him. We can’t do anything else.

Did he even get paid? I agree no one can work forever for free. of course you should thank someone for working for free but congratulating them? i think that's a bit over the top. who wants to be congratulated for working their butt off for free? hopefully bitcoin has a better retirement plan for its devs than that.

[franky1]

bitcoin is not some AI
it doesnt code itself

so when people want features. people need to code them

the point of blockchains and bitcoins invention 13 years ago was the solution to the byzantine generals problem where different people had different idea's of what direction to go forward(the problem)

a:(not the solution/purpose of blockchains)
it was not to have a commander/chief deciding, where all his captains follow and all the troops follow the captains
(one source of protocol, multiple source of litewallet, thousands of users)

b: (the solution/brilliance of blockchain purpose)
it was suppose to be multiple brands in operation, cooperating on same level playing field where any of them can pitch an idea/mission plan. and all brands at same level would announce the mission plan to their loyal troops and the idea/plan that rallied enough troops combined from all loyal brand bases towards that same cause, meant that the majority accepted mission moves forward in that direction.

instead it became a contentious battlefield where anyone not following the core mission was to be cast aside and treated as a outsider, spy, opponent, saboteur. where they need to become the enemy in single brans loyal troops eyes. and then fought off the fields and if they survive to have them in a completely separate playing field(altcoin)
(research REKT campaigns circa 2014-17, research mandatory deployment circa 2017)

this is where thousands of devs over the years ended up leaving bitcoin to do their own projects. as they were pushed out of the bitcoin community.

even in his retirement announcement last year he was admitting certain things
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

I’m happy with the job I’m doing, happy to work with a few very smart people on an extremely interesting project, involving various entirely new challenges, that could have enormous impact. But on the other hand Bitcoin infrastucture development must be one of the most hostile and crazy working environments in existence, at least in software development.


This is my personal reflection on recent events, and should not be seen as any official statement for Bitcoin nor Bitcoin Core.
Atmospheric toxicity

Day in, day out, there is trolling, targeted attacks, shilling on social media targeted toward us. I don’t know of any other project like this. I’ve seen developer teams in MMOs under similar pressure from users; but possibly this is even worse. There, there are avid disagreements about how the game rules should be changed, here people get worked up about changes affecting a whole economic system. And the people attacking are, in many cases, not even users of the software.

in blue: the acknowledgement that the core software was the most impactful controlling part of bitcoin infrastructure where he and core devs viewed anyone not agreeing/loyal to core devs were seen as attacking core

but you gotta laugh that his knowledge of the controlling aspect meant that he needed to add a disclaimer "his thoughts dont represent a corporate official statement of bitcoin

and last year in his final year announcing more of the things that do not align with the solution to byzantine generals problem that bitcoin/blockchains solved 13 years ago

Some development tasks are extremely complex and require focus over a long time. It is essential to be able to reduce distractions, by being at least sure that your own team has your back.
For those reasons over the last years we’ve tried to create a more sane and focused environment for developers to work in. Part of this is a restructuring of the project. A decoupling of the name “Bitcoin Core” from “Bitcoin”. Bitcoin is (understandably) seen as public property. No one owns the bitcoin system, it is supposed to be decentralized and intangible.

However Bitcoin Core is a software project run by a team of people working together, on an open source basis. People who choose for themselves who they want to work with, and who they don’t want to work with.

There comes a point when it is time to break ties with certain individuals which were formative in the beginning but have, over time, ossified and even come to be seen as a toxic influence. Especially if they haven’t partaken in active development for a long time./

note how he uses terms like FOSS and open source. rather than terms like open gate, open door open community
it basically means the code is clear to read(open:transparent). but access to get getting involved in helping with the code is not truly open