"Bitcoin’s Future Depends on Six Mysterious Coders" WSJ, CSW and Andrew Chow

[Greg Tonoski]

There is the article titled "Bitcoin’s Future Depends on Six Mysterious Coders" in Wall Street Journal. “There have been numerous covert fixes,” Mr. Chow said in a phone interview" quoted in the article. Andrew Chow is Bitcoin Core contributor. CSW doesn't attack him unlike others in the court cases [2023] EWCA Civ 83, where he contends: "the developers (...) in this case control and run (...) bitcoin (...)." and should transfer $BTC (equivalent to $4bn) to CSW. "[Developers] contend that they have nothing like the power or control Tulip [CSW] alleges (...)".

It seems that Andrew Chow opinion expressed in the article could be used as argument against the defendants (Bitcoin Core maintainers) and supports CSW's claim. Do you agree?

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

What makes you feels we can believe in this crap you're coming with when Craig Wright is already a bitcoin antagonist, when we are talking about those that has great municipal corporation with bitcoin and Satoshi himself then think about one of the greatest cypherpunk Hal Finney of blessed memory, which i believe you never thought or mentioned his name, show me the link to where all these your information were gotten and i will still prove you wrong, bitcoin future does not depends on anyone, it's decentralized on itself with blockchain as long as the concensus works inline with the protocol in which it was built upon, no one controls bitcoin and stop getting misinformed.

[digaran]

I would like you to meet Satoshi, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Matsuoka
CSW could GFHS.

[buwaytress]

I don't disagree these guys have power to change Bitcoin's code, but it's more accurate to say they can hold sway over any proposed changes in it. If it were true that a handful of people can bend/break Bitcoin to their will, then Bitcoin would have failed. You can put it to the test, too. Get one of them to write something arbitrary into the code, and people will notice, question, likely protest. And their reputations gone, also as the article does point out.

Read and you understand that these maintainers are chosen by (technically equivalent) peers and to quote: “act as a final check to ensure that patches are safe and in line with the project goals.”

That's the power they have, really.

The article's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-core-maintainers-crypto-7b93804

P.S. I didn't realise Chow'd been "promoted" What's so mysterious about those developers? He's got an account here and he's never struck me as a guy shrouded in mystery.

[franky1]

'final check'?
only check

Achow has gone "god-mode"
he controls the moderation of many platforms used as technical discussion, he does not like independant review, scrutiny or critique outside the core team roadmap

he enjoys those that FOLLOW cores roadmap but wants anyone opposing the core roadmap removed from discussion. even in github he has recently proposed only the 6 maintainer have complete moderation control of github and also wanted to change who has ACK nAck acknowledgement of code proposals
achow has become one of the biggest causes of centralising core
years ago is was luke and sipa. now its achow and sipa


bitcoin core is not an "open-gated community* achow feels that open source just means open to read, but not open be part of the development.
 (unless you are the 'diversity hire' volunteer allowed to make a few grammar check alterations to seem less centralised)

he strongly hates independence and openness

I don't disagree these guys have power to change Bitcoin's code, but it's more accurate to say they can hold sway over any proposed changes in it. If it were true that a handful of people can bend/break Bitcoin to their will, then Bitcoin would have failed. You can put it to the test, too. Get one of them to write something arbitrary into the code, and people will notice, question, likely protest. And their reputations gone, also as the article does point out.

there are protests already. and their reputations are questioned. but that doesnt stop them

softening consensus has already happened to allow core to put in new things without the majority of nodes upgrading first to consent to an activation

[odolvlobo]

There is the article titled "Bitcoin’s Future Depends on Six Mysterious Coders" in Wall Street Journal. “There have been numerous covert fixes,” Mr. Chow said in a phone interview" quoted in the article. Andrew Chow is Bitcoin Core contributor. CSW doesn't attack him unlike others in the court cases [2023] EWCA Civ 83, where he contends: "the developers (...) in this case control and run (...) bitcoin (...)." and should transfer $BTC (equivalent to $4bn) to CSW. "[Developers] contend that they have nothing like the power or control Tulip [CSW] alleges (...)".
It seems that Andrew Chow opinion expressed in the article could be used as argument against the defendants (Bitcoin Core maintainers) and supports CSW's claim. Do you agree?

You didn't link the article or even quote Andrew Chow's opinion, so it is hard to agree or disagree with him.

I believe that the effort by CSW to force the Bitcoin Core developers to make changes to the code is moot. Even if they are forced to add the feature requested by CSW, there is no requirement for anyone to use it.

Furthermore, the developers that implement the feature could not be prevented from distancing themselves from it, or denouncing it, or even recommending that people avoid it. It is not clear that they would have to build on it, making it a one time release.

I believe that if such a feature were incorporated into a version of Bitcoin Core, then most users will simply choose to skip that version.

[Carlton Banks]

There is the article titled "Bitcoin’s Future Depends on Six Mysterious Coders" in Wall Street Journal

one could see this as a way to push the developers further into the public sphere than they are already, there's nothing mysterious about them that I'm aware of.

Satoshi was the mystery man, and it seems he chose anonymity in order to get people to focus on the code, not the coder


...and so WSJ is proving that they're pure tabloid trash with this nonsense. The devs responded to requests for interviews, and by way of gratitude, the journalists and their bosses label them "mysterious"? assholes, all of them