Is it okay for Bitcoin Core development to be funded by Banks?

[we-btc]

I just read in two publications that VanEck and BitWise will be funding Core development.

https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827

There is a clear conflict of interest here.  Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?

As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.

[1714615562]

1714615562

[kennyliang23]

I am more curious on what kinds of terms would Banks offer in return for the money they invest??

Banks are no charities, they are normal capitalists just like you and me

[franky1]

core devs have been funded by many corporations for years. DCG and others funded core devs from 2014+
why do you think most bitcoin code updates have not been to make bitcoin network use more easy, cheap, able. and instead be code exploits to annoy bitcoin network users in an aim to push people into using other middlemen required services and subnetworks

[DooMAD]

I can see cause for some concern.  But I'd be more worried if they were conventional commercial banks.  VanEck and Bitwise are more to do with asset management, brokerage, etc.  Plus, they're seemingly on board with the general concept of Bitcoin and have made it a central pillar of their respective business models.  If they now rely on Bitcoin, it makes sense that they'd want to contribute to its continued development.  I'm confident the community are vigilant enough to notice if there were any sudden changes in approach or direction for Bitcoin development and would act according.  It's a potential conflict of interests and transparency should help ensure it's only ever potential.

[Kruw]

A note for anyone who thinks it's *not* okay, make sure you put your money where your mouth is and fund/contribute yourself.

[satashi_nokamato]

If it is only donation, nothing to worry about, but if they demand anything for their own agendas in return, I'd say it's concerning indeed.

[we-btc]

If it is only donation, nothing to worry about, but if they demand anything for their own agendas in return, I'd say it's concerning indeed.

How would you know if they asked for a favor or got their their agenda pushed to the top of the list?  The problem with contributions, like campaign contributions, is that it creates a conflict of interest. No matter what the receiver of said contribution says to defend themselves the perceived influence is unavoidable.

Bitcoin needs to remain decentralized and the way that this is accomplished is making it easy for nodes to decide which version of Core they would like to run.  The problem with this is that most nodes have no idea that it is their responsibility to keep Bitcoin decentralized.  They install the next update blindly.  This puts control in the hands a few developers and if they are funded by anyone there will be perceived favoritism.  Said another way, it becomes a pay to play game like our government has become.

In my opinion Bitcoin development should be strictly volunteer.  Let's not allow the most potentially transformative idea in a generation to be co-opted by anyone. 

[o48o]

I just read in two publications that VanEck and BitWise will be funding Core development.

https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-by-vaneck-benefit-btc-core-developers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/01/30/the-bitcoin-spot-etf-a-catalyst-for-change-in-bitcoin-first-companies/?sh=13226e9f2827

There is a clear conflict of interest here.  Should this be allowed? Should anyone have this kind of influence over the Core code?

As far as I know Satoshi developed the initial code and accepted no money in return for this very reason.

Why does it even matter? Miners choose what changes they will back up by mining it, and community chooses if they support any fork. So what kind of changes are you afraid of exactly and why and how could anyone enforce them to us?

If radical changes are coming, we see them coming from mile away and can just not accept them. Also funders are not stupid. They don't expect bitcoin to be somehow more centralized or controlled by their funding.

[franky1]

guess most people in this topic have not realised whats already occurred in the last 7 years with code edits that have affected bitcoin

[ArikeTobi]

guess most people in this topic have not realised whats already occurred in the last 7 years with code edits that have affected bitcoin

Senior man, we are keen to learning, please go ahead in telling us more regarding what happened, personally I know that not everything happening are visible to us, but those within or close to the circle could tell more and better.

[we-btc]

Why does it even matter? Miners choose what changes they will back up by mining it, and community chooses if they support any fork. So what kind of changes are you afraid of exactly and why and how could anyone enforce them to us?
If radical changes are coming, we see them coming from mile away and can just not accept them. Also funders are not stupid. They don't expect bitcoin to be somehow more centralized or controlled by their funding.

Some funders absolutely want to control the direction of Bitcoin.  To start, Banks and governments will fight to prevent its use as a currency or they will co-opt it to more completely control the movement of money.

This community should do everything it can to develop Bitcoin for it's intended purpose - a "purely peer-to-peer electronic form of cash".

A diverse group of node operators, or better yet, everyone who uses Bitcoin as "electronic cash" should have a say in how Bitcoin is changed.

The internet is an edge network and Bitcoin was designed to take advantage of that by pushing the decisions out to the nodes.  In a perfect world most people who transact in Bitcoin would have their own node and have a say in its development.

If you want the people and institutions with lots of money to dictate Bitcoin's future then by all means allow the core developers to accept donations from them.

[Orpichukwu]

If it is only donation, nothing to worry about, but if they demand anything for their own agendas in return, I'd say it's concerning indeed.

When there was news about BlackRock’s or which other stock investment companies' bitcoin ETF was recently approved, I can't recall which of them made that statement where it was stated that either 5% or 10% of their profit will be donated to bitcoin core developers. Out of curiosity, I asked a question about what they would want to benefit from such a statement.
 
But I was made to understand that there is little to nothing that they can influence on bitcoin, as the majority of any change on the network is being done by voting, and if the majority doesn't support any decision, then it's going nowhere. So if there is anyone who wants to make a generous donation to the network, let them do it, as the funds will go a long way towards the development team.

[franky1]

institutions know they cannot get middlemen commission from the network itself (unless they run mining equipment)
so they want to make bitcoin annoying to use so that people revert to using centralised services and subnetworks that involve middlemen

they first offer the "free" "fast" option to gain adoption. and say they can peg their units and allow easy access
then they start making the base asset expensive to exit to lock people in long term, so they can then increase their own units cost per payment, nd where users are left unable to settle their accumulations so instead spend down their value until its gone, where the institution then gets to settle to their side

its not a new concept, its been done forever in trad-fi, eventually they then start changing the pegs once they know they have people locked into their payment system due to the cost of escaping their payment system is more annoying
just look at the dev groups making these subnetworks and look at who sponsors them.. then look at the core devs who concentrate on bitcoin edits to be more communicative with subnetworks and look at their sponsors

also look at the devs that make bitcoin more annoying and look at their sponsors.

[hatshepsut93]

Big companies are funding open source projects that they are using all the time, sometimes they even hire the devs as consultants or to make some custom modifications for their use cases. Why should it be different with Bitcoin? If big companies that participate in Bitcoin ecosystem want to stimulate Bitcoin development, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to throw accusations, you'd better back them with proof that there are actually development decisions being made that benefit those companies as the result of donations.

[Despairo]

Funding Sources for Bitcoin Core Development

Several organizations and companies contribute to the funding of Bitcoin Core development, including Square Crypto, Chaincode, MIT DCI, Blockstream, Gemini, Coinbase, BitMEX, Hardcore Fund, and other notable contributors.

Bitcoin Core have been funded by many companies, so if there's a new company want to fund them, I don't think it's gonna make any difference.

I think, as long as there's no pool has more than 50% hashrate, it's still safe.

institutions know they cannot get middlemen commission from the network itself (unless they run mining equipment)
so they want to make bitcoin annoying to use so that people revert to using centralised services and subnetworks that involve middlemen

In what way the institutions make Bitcoin annoying to use? is there a site that show who make the most transactions everyday? I never heard it. To me, it's more like a conspiracy, it's not the institutions make Bitcoin fee become high, but most people don't mind to become a product.

[franky1]

In what way the institutions make Bitcoin annoying to use? is there a site that show who make the most transactions everyday? I never heard it. To me, it's more like a conspiracy, it's not the institutions make Bitcoin fee become high, but most people don't mind to become a product.

bitcoin is not some self code creating AI.
so when core devs changed the code(softened the rules of new opcodes) to allow validation bypass bloat data.. core done it
so when core devs (as the main software of network)changed the code to allow fee bumps of 5sat instead of 1 sat.. core done it
so when core devs and their sponsors(NYA) mandated changes, not requiring user node consensus.. core done it

now read up on all the core features added in last many years.. and see if they helped majority of bitcoins use bitcoin on the bitcoin network to have an easier cheaper less annoying time on the bitcoin network to make simple lean transactions and able to make alot more transactions per megabyte multiplier(EG 4x block =4x tx count).. or not.. hint: hmm nope
read the code look at the economic utility. and see if cores edits to protocol and softening of rules have helped BITCOINERS be BITCOINERS or has it just helped cause bitcoiners to be swayed into becoming users of other systems which mostly rely on middlemen due to annoyances

[hd49728]

Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin without any donation from banks.
Early Bitcoin developers did not need cash donation to develop Bitcoin Core.

There is a donation website for Bitcoin developers and they accept Bitcoin, on-chain or through Lightning Network.
https://bitcoindevlist.com/

Bitcoin Donation Portal

Support bitcoin developers so they can focus on building our future

This website lists people working on Bitcoin and related projects. The goal is to increase the visibility of contributors to the space that are accepting donations. If you are currently working on a bitcoin related open source project, submit a PR to get yourself added.

Being listed on this site should not be considered an endorsement. The order individuals are shown is randomized every visit.

[NASdaq]

Even without influence to core team, they still have more than enough btc to manipulate market via trades and more than enough attention to them to manipulate market via news

[DooMAD]

guess most people in this topic have not realised whats already occurred in the last 7 years with code edits that have affected bitcoin

Senior man, we are keen to learning, please go ahead in telling us more regarding what happened, personally I know that not everything happening are visible to us, but those within or close to the circle could tell more and better.

He might have a high rank, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should trust what he says.  I have that particular user on ignore because he constantly spouts tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense.  His version of events will likely be exaggerated at best and outright lies at worst.  He has a long-standing vendetta against developers after they made fun of him.  It's all a bit petty and feeble, really.

institutions know they cannot get middlemen commission from the network itself (unless they run mining equipment)
so they want to make bitcoin annoying to use so that people revert to using centralised services and subnetworks that involve middlemen

In what way the institutions make Bitcoin annoying to use? is there a site that show who make the most transactions everyday? I never heard it. To me, it's more like a conspiracy, it's not the institutions make Bitcoin fee become high, but most people don't mind to become a product.

That user has an irrational hatred for off-chain transactions.  He claims devs are "crippling" the base protocol and "forcing" users into layer 2.  It's absurd.  He's just a sad little lunatic who has completely lost touch with reality.  He is incapable of being objective or rational when it comes to anything off-chain.  

[Cryptomultiplier]

Bitcoin core development could be funded by any body that has the resources and means to. As long as the highlighted word is Bitcoin, perhaps the development would be to some degree of benefit hence why they fund it.
The benefits of course is there, else why fund it?
With the halving expected, and the ETF approved already, mixers became banned and we are still to expect further changes in coming days, both as concerns its price, the network it runs on, the miners fees, network fees and in other areas where much may be gained from.