"Bitcoin’s Future Hinges on Donations, and That’s Got People Worried"

[pawel7777]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bitcoin-future-hinges-donations-got-194653381.html

This concept seems counter to how the majority of blockchain networks approach funding. Most so-called decentralized networks are governed and funded by central foundations.

Ethereum, for example, was pre-mined via the second largest crowdsale on the Internet at the time and ongoing development is mostly funded by the Ethereum Foundation which held $1.6 billion in its coffers last year.

Bitcoin doesn’t have $1.6 billion lying around to fund development. A rough back-of- the-envelope calculation indicates $150 million to $200 million would be required every year to fund development in the entire Bitcoin ecosystem (assuming 1,000 developers receiving Google’s average $150,000 to $200,000 annual compensation for software engineers).

Is Bitcoin development being dependent on funding from crypto-businesses a potential threat? What's the worst that could happen if the funding dries up and there are only a handful of dedicated devs dedicating only their spare time? Will Bitcoin survive?

I think the $150-$200 mil/year to maintain the entire ecosystem is likely exaggerated, but what's the minimum level of funding, if any?

[1714207716]

1714207716

[1714207716]

1714207716

[1714207716]

1714207716

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Donations to who?
a. The major developers involved in Core *are*already rather well paid by various interests.

b. Most of them have been involved in the development of BTC almost since it's earliest days and still have rather tidy sums of the BTC they've acquired during that time so they are certainly not hurting for money. Hell, a few years ago Luke Jr. bragged about still having several thousand BTC ... Because of this, 'a.' is more than anything just to keep them actively interested in watching over BTC vs paying them to be under direct control of business interests. So far, overall they have been good stewards and Keepers of the Flame.

c.You imply that some sort of continuing large-scale corporate-funded development needs to be implemented... For what? "Additional features and functions"?

The existing BTC technology does not need to be and SHOULD NOT BE tampered with by adding things that have no bearing on what BTC was intended to do: be a means of acquiring, holding, and transferring funds with it being community developed and guided.

The goals of altcoins like ETH are entirely different - ya know, "Smart Contracts" and all. It was created as a business, by business people (who became obscenely rich of course), to serve a wide varity of business functions and is ran as a centralized business controlled by a handful of people who are in it purely for the $$$$$ it makes them.

[jackg]

Have you thought of including Google's marketing budget too, how else will people use the software if we don't spend $3.2B on advertising in the US?

This is one of the many pitfalls of comparing open source software to that of propriety systems or companies. What happened to all the illegal trades using bitcoin to hide their transactions, will they lose that interest? What about miners with billions in hardware? While the technology remains valuable, there'll still be tons of cash entering the space, and, when there isn't, you're going to have quite a good reputation to move on from as an active core dev imo. The largest mmos can produce new content and provide their services on an annual budget of around $40 million too afaik (excluding marketing and hosting costs).

[sha420hashcollision]

Bitcoin started with ZERO funding it will continue with ZERO funding there is no centralized source of funding for Bitcoin, one team dies another one springs up.

[pooya87]

Ethereum, for example, was pre-mined ~ the Ethereum Foundation which held $1.6 billion
Bitcoin doesn’t have $1.6 billion lying around to fund development.

This is a very interesting comparison that without money but with innovation you can create a new form of money that after 13-14 years it still stays on top and continues growing while even with billions of dollars but without any innovation you can only create a very hyped up shitcoin that only pumped for 4 years and have been dumping for the past 5-6.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Ethereum, for example, was pre-mined ~ the Ethereum Foundation which held $1.6 billion
Bitcoin doesn’t have $1.6 billion lying around to fund development.

This is a very interesting comparison that without money but with innovation you can create a new form of money that after 13-14 years it still stays on top and continues growing while even with billions of dollars but without any innovation you can only create a very hyped up shitcoin that only pumped for 4 years and have been dumping for the past 5-6.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing I would add is that most of that piggy bank is from the original developers pre-mining the hell out of the coin(s) before opening it to the public.

[Justtoons]

No matter what happens, there will still be several organizations that are still going to help fund Bitcoin development and maintenance. It has been able to hold it's self for years so why will it fall all of a sudden just because some donators or crypto businesses decided to hold their donations to them self. Bitcoin will still survive.

[Lucius]

What kind of "top" journalism is this? The way I see it, someone is trying to say that pre-mined shitocins have a much higher chance of success because that way they will be able to pay their developers, while those who work for the benefit of Bitcoin will sooner or later dry up

So if people are already worried about what will happen when the last Bitcoin is mined in 100+ years, or whether Satoshi will appear with his 1+ million BTC or whether we will remain in the dark because of BTC mining - then this is just one more doubt on the list of those we really need to worry about...

[o_e_l_e_o]

Only donations!? Oh no! Better not tell these "worried people" about Wikipedia. They only survive on donations too! Or Linux. Or Tor. Or Firefox. Or LibreOffice. Or GIMP. Or VLC. Or the hundreds of thousands of pieces of FOSS used around the world every day.

Maybe Bitcoin Corp needs to downsize. Get employees to work from home. Sell up their office space. Maybe they'll have to cut some of their customer support agents. Shut down some of the Bitcoin Corp servers.

Ethereum, for example, was pre-mined ~ the Ethereum Foundation which held $1.6 billion
Bitcoin doesn’t have $1.6 billion lying around to fund development.

Imagine trying to pass off the lack of a pre-mine as a disadvantage of bitcoin. Oh no, bitcoin exists to be a currency and not just to make its centralized owners overnight billionaires!

[dkbit98]

Is Bitcoin development being dependent on funding from crypto-businesses a potential threat? What's the worst that could happen if the funding dries up and there are only a handful of dedicated devs dedicating only their spare time? Will Bitcoin survive?

Even in worst case scenario if all current developers stop updating code Bitcoin would not suddenly die and stop working.
Everything is working fine now, with only small bugs being corrected from time to time, but there are volunteers helping all the time.
Bitcoin will survive and thrive, and much bigger danger is that some malicious developers try to harm Bitcoin from the inside.

I think the $150-$200 mil/year to maintain the entire ecosystem is likely exaggerated, but what's the minimum level of funding, if any?

It's not realistic to count anything in dollars or any other fiat currency because of constant inflation going up.
I think developers are mostly receiving payments in Bitcoin.

[NotATether]

If there is enough passion in the developers then you don't need any amount of donations to keep the project going. It's only when you want to make the developers work full time on this that you better start covering their living expenses.

[aylabadia05]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bitcoin-future-hinges-donations-got-194653381.html

[snip]

This is an example of a conversation that I quoted from the source listed in this topic.

Lee doesn't believe Bitcoin, even in the most dire funding situation, will ever go completely bust.

"Even in the worst-case scenario, there's still several organisations that fund Bitcoin development," Lee explained. "As far as I know, they're not in a situation where the budgets can disappear, and that includes Spiral and also includes Chaincode Labs and Brink."

In short, I think there is no need for donations like their conversation in the article even though I am not an expert who has broader knowledge about Bitcoin development. The future of Bitcoin does not depend on donations.
The question what if the funds dry up what will happen? It crosses my mind that Bitcoin has proven to many that it is able to survive since its inception until now.

[gmaxwell]

Imagine trying to pass off the lack of a pre-mine as a disadvantage of bitcoin. Oh no, bitcoin exists to be a currency and not just to make its centralized owners overnight billionaires!

Decentralization has many serous disadvantages-- among them that getting importance maintenance done can be challenging.

But it also has many advantages, which is why Bitcoin exists in the first place.

These centralized scamcoins that have no difficulty keeping development funded with their premines and controlling foundations. What reason do they have to exist at all, except making their founders rich at the expense of people too ignorant to realize that the decentralization just isn't there?

[goatpig]

b. Most of them have been involved in the development of BTC almost since it's earliest days and still have rather tidy sums of the BTC they've acquired during that time so they are certainly not hurting for money. Hell, a few years ago Luke Jr. bragged about still having several thousand BTC ...

Let's not circulate the idea that Core devs are swimming in BTC. $5 wrenches and what not, you know. Also, wasn't there an instance where Luke lost all his coins?

[NeuroticFish]

Donations to who?
a. The major developers involved in Core *are*already rather well paid by various interests.

I don't know who is coming up with these news, but one day they're worried because the devs don't have their ID and driving license posted on git, next day we have to be worried because they are paid by this or that companies, hence their work may be biased, and third day they post that the devs are paid by donations and that's not a good model.

I, myself, got the point: somebody wants us be worried on devs, no matter what. Is that somebody getting desperate?!

[o_e_l_e_o]

What reason do they have to exist at all, except making their founders rich at the expense of people too ignorant to realize that the decentralization just isn't there?

Well, isn't it obvious? So another centralized third party can launch a token on top of that centralized scamcoin, again making more overnight millionaires while reeling in newbies with empty promises of 200% returns if you just buy our token then immediately lock it up by staking it with yet another third party so you can't dump it on the market! Spam your Twitter followers for an extra 10%!

I, myself, got the point: somebody wants us be worried on devs, no matter what. Is that somebody getting desperate?!

Now that you mention it, it's been at least a few months since I've seen a new article reminding us that bitcoin is single handedly destroying the planet. Perhaps this is the start of a new angle of attack? With Wuille, van der Laan, and now Falke all stepping down in recent months, then perhaps the next article will be about how devs are "abandoning" the project?

[thecodebear]

That's just pure FUD.


I mean it is open source, so anyone can contribute to it, it is not necessary for any funding at all.

But of course some organizations in the Bitcoin economy do fund people to work on it full time, and others donate to help fund people to work on it full time. This helps, but it isn't entirely necessary so no Bitcoin's Future doesn't hinge on donations.


The barrier to working on Bitcoin is ability, not funding.

Also, there is no reason the funding would dry up because they are funded by organizations in the Bitcoin ecosystem that have a business interest in seeing Bitcoin succeed and continue to advance technologically.

[Artemis3]

Only donations!? Oh no! Better not tell these "worried people" about Wikipedia. They only survive on donations too! Or Linux. Or Tor. Or Firefox. Or LibreOffice. Or GIMP. Or VLC. Or the hundreds of thousands of pieces of FOSS used around the world every day.

Too bad WIkipedia and Firefox drank the Ripple lobbying FUD and decided to ban bitcoin donations "because it hurts the environment"...

[NeuroticFish]

Now that you mention it, it's been at least a few months since I've seen a new article reminding us that bitcoin is single handedly destroying the planet. Perhaps this is the start of a new angle of attack? With Wuille, van der Laan, and now Falke all stepping down in recent months, then perhaps the next article will be about how devs are "abandoning" the project?

That will have to wait. Now there's the drama about BUSD going down, about Binance going down (I've already seen this movie after FTX, is it a re-run?)...
Now they have ammo to keep buyers worried (and losing time). When they'll get no other "news", then the "abandoning" story is just as good as any other and may worth publlishing

[pawel7777]

Donations to who?
a. The major developers involved in Core *are*already rather well paid by various interests.

Is it a bad thing if they're being paid for their work on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core? Is this not needed? Can Bitcoin carry on without devs getting paid?

b. Most of them have been involved in the development of BTC almost since it's earliest days and still have rather tidy sums of the BTC they've acquired during that time so they are certainly not hurting for money. Hell, a few years ago Luke Jr. bragged about still having several thousand BTC

So? Do you take their work for granted? Do they not deserve to get paid for their work? Do you feel like they owe you (and entire community) their time because they have some bitcoins?
They're mostly middle age now and probably will want to retire at some point. Plus, nobody lives forever. What then? Do you expect a new wave of devs (who doesn't have that emotional, early adopter mentality and doesn't hold millions in BTC) to just dedicate a big portion of their lives to Bitcoin, rather than spending that time earning big money?
ps. Luke Jr got hacked and lost ~$3 mils worth.

c.You imply that some sort of continuing large-scale corporate-funded development needs to be implemented... For what? "Additional features and functions"?

I literally just posted an article and asked genuine questions. I haven't implied anything.

The existing BTC technology does not need to be and SHOULD NOT BE tampered with by adding things that have no bearing on what BTC was intended to do: be a means of acquiring, holding, and transferring funds with it being community developed and guided.

Lol what? So all the Segwit, Taproot, or other upgrades were not needed? Or are you implying that we won't need any sort of upgrades in the future?