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.

[1714614078]

1714614078

[1714614078]

1714614078

[1714614078]

1714614078

[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.

[stompix]

There is a clear conflict of interest here.  Should this be allowed?

SHA-2 was developed by the NSA
TOR was created by the NRL, a branch of the US Navy!
I don't see anyone criticizing their usage in both bitcoin and when used to protect your privacy.

So, what conflict of interest you're talking about here?

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.

Yeah, and how is that working?
Cause I see governments legalizing's Bitcoin everywhere but when I ask bitcoiners if they want to use it as a currency 99% of the responses are "My previous, why spend it, it can be 10000% after the halving, it's stupid to spend this investment, my precious, give it to me". 

[tbct_mt2]

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.

Yeah, and how is that working?
Cause I see governments legalizing's Bitcoin everywhere but when I ask bitcoiners if they want to use it as a currency 99% of the responses are "My previous, why spend it, it can be 10000% after the halving, it's stupid to spend this investment, my precious, give it to me". 

They will have to sell bitcoins to have cash but how much they will sell from total bitcoins they have will be different by investors. Investors who have strong finance and good finance management, will don't need to sell bitcoin because need of money to use. They already reserve cash to use without need to sell bitcoin.

With small investors who can bet all in bitcoin, they have bad capital, financial management and they will have to sell bitcoin even before a halving. Sometimes they have sudden need of cash and can not hold their bitcoin.

Have good financial and capital management will hep us to maximize our chance to get profit.

[stompix]

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.

Yeah, and how is that working?
Cause I see governments legalizing's Bitcoin everywhere but when I ask bitcoiners if they want to use it as a currency 99% of the responses are "My previous, why spend it, it can be 10000% after the halving, it's stupid to spend this investment, my precious, give it to me". 

They will have to sell bitcoins to have cash but how much they will sell from total bitcoins they have will be different by investors. Investors who have strong finance and good finance management, will don't need to sell bitcoin because need of money to use. They already reserve cash to use without need to sell bitcoin. With small investors who can bet all in bitcoin, they have bad capital, financial management and they will have to sell bitcoin even before a halving.

I thought we were talking about a currency, not an asset! 
This is not about investors!
This is about people right here on bitcointalk outright refusing to use Bitcoin as a currency because it will waste their get rich by doing nothing chances!
And all this thing makes zero sense since you could simply buy a $100 shoe with Bitcoin and then use your $100 to buy back Bitcoins, promoting usage and promoting adoption, it's not like you pay those satoshi and are forever gone, but good luck trying to change that mindset.

https://decrypt.co/214834/sharp-decline-in-crypto-payments-puts-el-salvadors-bitcoin-adoption-in-question

With only 1% of remittances made using crypto—a notable decline from the previous year—the nation's bold Bitcoin initiative is falling flat.

So, who's the enemy against adoption, the government, banks, or the person looking back from the mirror?

[Natsuu]

The worry is that if companies like VanEck and BitWise fund Core development, they might push for changes that suit their interests, messing with Bitcoin's decentralized vibe. Satoshi avoided money to keep things neutral. Striking a balance between funding and code integrity is key for Bitcoin's success and theres still a lot to discover

[we-btc]

So, who's the enemy against adoption, the government, banks, or the person looking back from the mirror?

You are absolutely right.  When it comes down to it the people have control.  If we start using it as a currency then Bitcoin is a currency.  From that perspective we can only blame ourselves but most people are uneducated about Bitcoin and believe what they hear and see on the television and Internet.  This means that the majority will act based on what the media(banks) tell them to think. Example: Bitcoin is used by criminals, Bitcoin is unsafe, Buy an ETF because it is simple and you get exposure to Bitcoin, only scammers like SBF are involved in crypto...

The message put out by the media is what the masses tend to adopt and if the institutions control the media and the code what hope does it have?

[Smartvirus]

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

I think this might just be the eye opener to what’s been the case and what’s likely to be the interest in the event of this development for a likely possibility. I have never really take a peep in this but, it’s unlikely that anything would be done without some interest and with the banks and other corporations looking to benefit from the trend that have continued over the years and keeps getting bigger and bigger, this be a huge window of opportunity for them to drop a taproot and milk the system.

More so, this is coming in a time when Bitcoin is expected to doing some numbers. It’s just some means to utilize presented opportunities.

[franky1]

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.

since 2017. it does not matter what version people use (research "backward compatibility" which literally softened the need of usernode consensus)
and completely funny how you said version of... core

a. core chose the name as it means centeralpoint of failure
b. core is core is core. your not offering other options, of node brands that are community driven to offer upgrade proposals
(because cores maskots, sponsors and fans REKT any other brand of node that wanted to propose any changes to the protocol. thus making core the single reference client for changes to the network. and thus controllers)

since 2017 it doesnt matter if you dont upgrade. core can slide in new things without the need of majority consent(consensus).. they call this trick "backward compatibility"
want proof..?? can you remember any mass community consensus event for taproot? nope, didnt happen and now you know why

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.

funny part is i was making fun out of the core devs by calling out on all the broken promises
first butting of heads was when i called them out of their changes from 2016 which i highlight here.. (and 8 years later look at the ordinals junk)

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..

 we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

then we butted heads about the broken promises of extra transactions per blocks that didnt happen (no 2x-4x tx count)

the core devs do not want to do things the community want for bitcoin..
read all their big feature additions (PSBT, Taproot, fee bump, etc etc) and see who benefits from it the most. (hint middlemen groups on subnetworks)


and its actually idiots like doomad that say core devs should not be asked to do things for the community and are instead should do things they are paid to do or want to do themselves for their own internal reasons. basically doomad adores core devs being the unscrutinised gods of bitcoin with not responsibility of care to real bitcoiner community and he adores commercialising. he loves the idea of recruiting people away from bitcoin and moving them to other systems,.. just read his post history..(he prefers people to use lightning, even when lightning is proven to be buggy, flawed centralised and not what bitcoin was made for). doomad also does not believe in consent of the masses(consensus) his buzzword for his dis-consent is "permissionless"

as for all of my stuff i can back up what i say happened in the past, about softening the network security, less requirement of usernode consensus,  changing the protocol/policies causing all the annoyances, because code and blockdata exist to prove it all. doomads opinions are jsut based on quotes from his favoured clan of people that think like him.
doomad just hates that i dont treat core as gods

[PrivacyG]

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

Think about it.  You worked out of passion for free and all of a sudden an institution is funding you thousands a month to do the same work.  You will become biased inevitably and you will work knowing that is life changing money you are receiving.

Getting used to earning thousands for your work is harder to let go.

Anyway.  What do you really think happens when a Bank who hates Decentralization funds the developers of a Decentralized project?  Could it be that it may influence the developers into implementing more useless coding out of fear of a crack down or out of fear of Banks possibly choosing other much less Decentralization focused developers to fund?  There are a lot of things that may go wrong.  Money changes people.  Keep that in mind.

[franky1]

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

they already became financially biased/decisive/swayed

there was nothing wrong when devs were independant and were listening to the bitcoin community and doing things that benefitted the bitcoin community, where they would get rewarded indivividually for helping bitcoin do whats best for bitcoiners

its actually a bad idea when core devs formed their own business and seeked private funding(blockstream)
(and then they created sister companies, brinks and chaincode labs to appear diversified(yet still all in agreement to the "core roadmap"))
where the main github 'maintainer' 'merge' key holders are employed by the same group and have set employment policy and oversight/management/responsibility of different parts of the protocol. where by they self 'force-merge' in their own edits without wide review/scrutiny of independently minded other people(outsiders of their group)
heck, the very same core devs are also the moderators of all the main communication levels of technical,development discussion, moderating out any scrutiny, objections to their actions

[Mate2237]

Well VanEck and BitWise can sponsor bitcoin core development process and the developers can also take a loan from VanEck and BitWise and do their programming and if the bitcoin core developers agree to take the offer then they can do but i believed that bitcoin community which is the developers of bitcoin have enough money to sponsor bitcoin at anytime and all time.

So they will not need anyone to sponsor their projects for them. Bitcoin developers can do alone.

[franky1]

So they will not need anyone to sponsor their projects for them. Bitcoin developers can do alone.

define bitcoin developers
do you mean the bitcoin core github "maintainer" key holders employed and funded by institutions right now.. or do you still envision bitcoin devs as the 2010-2014 that were more independent and where development had less of a hierarchy of control

[DooMAD]

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

I think this might just be the eye opener to what’s been the case and what’s likely to be the interest in the event of this development for a likely possibility.

If you believe that, then I've got some magic beans to sell you.  It's drivel.  When halfwits like franky1 advocate for "cheaper", what they actually mean is "weaker" and "less secure".  Sometimes compromise is necessary, but compromising -everyone's- security is short-sighted.  That's why the base layer remains the most secure and then users are given the option to move to higher layers and trade a small amount of that security in exchange for cheaper fees.  

It's not about "pushing" people.  It's about choice and situational appropriateness.  It's far more prudent and responsible to have different levels of security with different fees.  That way, it can cater to all needs.  

People can go build CommunistFruitcakeCoin if they want to take a moronic one-size-fits-all approach and force everyone to give a BTC0.00001 transaction the same security as a BTC1000 transaction and never have any alternative to that.



And, for the record, the scrutiny provided by the community is more than sufficient to keep devs in check.  If well-informed people raise issues, they are always considered.  It's only the scrutiny of franky1 which is absolutely fucking worthless.  All his issues are in his fucked up little head.

[thecodebear]

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.

This pretty much covers it.

[franky1]

And, for the record, the scrutiny provided by the community is more than sufficient to keep devs in check.  If well-informed people raise issues, they are always considered.  It's only the scrutiny of franky1 which is absolutely fucking worthless.  All his issues are in his fucked up little head.

funny part is you were one of the idiots trying to ban and quieten me FOR YEARS when i was highlighting the segwit exploit that would allow arbitrary data to be added.... and years later we have the ordinal bloat.. case and point proven
its on the blockchain not in my head
(look half a dozen posts back i highlighted in red as one example)


its funny how you pretend to be censorship resistant while salivating in a "ban franky" topic and ignoring posts that actually have been proven correct..

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

I think this might just be the eye opener to what’s been the case and what’s likely to be the interest in the event of this development for a likely possibility.

If you believe that, then I've got some magic beans to sell you.  It's drivel.  When halfwits like franky1 advocate for "cheaper", what they actually mean is "weaker" and "less secure".  

cheaper per transaction is about making bitcoin more easy and useful. inspiring more people to get involved with BITCOIN and not be sidestepped and pushed to other networks..
transaction scaling per block by de cludging the blocks and SCALING(not leaping) and other things like leaner tx and less spam.. all contribute to more tx meaning individuals pay less but the TOTAL combined fee reward for pools stays worthy

[MFahad]

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

I don't understand why would anyone say that's its not okay. Core developers are working hard in contributing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is not run by a company. core developers are always supported by third party organizers like these.
no one should have any problem with that.
as you said if anyone have problem then he should donate to core developers by himself. Saying is easy but doing is hard.

[franky1]

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

I don't understand why would anyone say that's its not okay. Core developers are working hard in contributing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is not run by a company. core developers are always supported by third party organizers like these.

check out bitcoin cores github(the main reference client everyone follows) and then look at the list of code "maintainers" and then look at the 3 sister company united businesses.. the maintainers work for (blockstream, brink, chaincode labs)
look at the main funders of those 3 businesses. and then look at what code has been changed over the years and who its benefits the most

the information is available if you just look

case in point 2014+ blockstream was main employer(chaincodelab came second) and they wanted bitcoin code edits to get their patented sidechain and subnetwork functionality to make bitcoin compatible with their sidechain/subnetworks

case in point 2019+ brink sistered off from blockstream/chaincode to concentrate on projects and pretend to diversify the workforce.. and they wanted bitcoin code edits to get their sponsors federated/hubbed services to have features that make their offchain systems operate better whilst making bitcoin more annoying to make people move into these offchain systems

its funny to see the main funders of those bitcoin employers, and depending on the year comparing the funding to the projects the funders are involved in regarding the crypto-verse and then seeing the code edits to bitcoin effect on those projects.. and if the same code benefits real bitcoiners or those institutions

[ABCbits]

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

By any chance, do you have better idea to fund Bitcoin Core developers? After all, direct funding is common on open source world. For example, majority change on Linux Kernel 5.10 LTS were done by people who work on certain company (which usually release closed-source software)[1]. Some even blatantly state their goal[2].

[1] https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/
[2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/google-funds-linux-kernel-developers-to-focus-exclusively-on-security

[franky1]

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

By any chance, do you have better idea to fund Bitcoin Core developers? After all, direct funding is common on open source world. For example, majority change on Linux Kernel 5.10 LTS were done by people who work on certain company (which usually release closed-source software)[1]. Some even blatantly state their goal[2].

[1] https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/
[2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/google-funds-linux-kernel-developers-to-focus-exclusively-on-security

firstly devs should be self sufficiently funded by doing what all bitcoiners do. invest in holding bitcoin.. and then devs coding bitcoin for bitcoiners benefit to get BITCOIN adoption/utility.. instead of being sponsored to edit bitcoin to be more 'other system friendly' and push people off the network

secondly
the core maintainers.. are deemed as the governing center of a monetary system. if the political whims of core devs require FIAT outside funding where devs cant even use the system they govern to make their own income. then it shows they are not interested in making bitcoin better for their own interests and befits bitcoiners.. and instead willing to be sellouts for FIAT wallstreet interests
(imagine if US treasury didnt want to control the treasury for american citizens benefit. but instead treasurers/politicians relied on yuan and made policy that benefits chinese institutional interests)

if devs cannot be self sufficient in a monetary system they have control of, which they change and edit.. they are failing themselves

im not suggesting core devs break the supply limit, add more coin and force mining pools to reward core devs . im suggesting core devs invest a sum and then make bitcoin better for bitcoiners and get their investment value to grow due to making bitcoin better for everyone.. instead of making it more annoying, softened, less easier for everyone.. but pushed to only want to operate for the benefit of institutional desires who pay them

(imagine CEO-employee's of any company invested in their own company. they would be more incentivised to make that company work better to then cause their investment to grow. instead of asking to be bailed out via other means outside the model)

[Julien_Olynpic]

Overall, I don't see a problem with Bitcoin developers being funded by banks. This is normal practice until banks begin to dictate their terms to developers. If this happens, it will be one of the worst things we can imagine. But banks are not the only ones who can finance Bitcoin developers. Anyone can act as a source of funding. However, it is a fact that individuals are less able to help developers. Still, the time of a good programmer is expensive, and an ordinary person does not have enough money at his disposal to feed programmers.
    Some banks are quite progressive and see potential in web3 technology.

[ABCbits]

It is always a bad idea to FUND Bitcoin Core developers directly.  It is very likely the developers will become biased at some point.

By any chance, do you have better idea to fund Bitcoin Core developers? After all, direct funding is common on open source world. For example, majority change on Linux Kernel 5.10 LTS were done by people who work on certain company (which usually release closed-source software)[1]. Some even blatantly state their goal[2].

[1] https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/
[2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/google-funds-linux-kernel-developers-to-focus-exclusively-on-security

firstly devs should be self sufficiently funded by doing what all bitcoiners do. invest in holding bitcoin.. and then devs coding bitcoin for bitcoiners benefit to get BITCOIN adoption/utility.. instead of being sponsored to edit bitcoin to be more 'other system friendly' and push people off the network

secondly
the core maintainers.. are deemed as the governing center of a monetary system. if the political whims of core devs require FIAT outside funding where devs cant even use the system they govern to make their own income. then it shows they are not interested in making bitcoin better for their own interests and befits bitcoiners.. and instead willing to be sellouts for FIAT wallstreet interests
(imagine if US treasury didnt want to control the treasury for american citizens benefit. but instead treasurers/politicians relied on yuan and made policy that benefits chinese institutional interests)

if devs cannot be self sufficient in a monetary system they have control of, which they change and edit.. they are failing themselves

im not suggesting core devs break the supply limit, add more coin and force mining pools to reward core devs . im suggesting core devs invest a sum and then make bitcoin better for bitcoiners and get their investment value to grow due to making bitcoin better for everyone.. instead of making it more annoying, softened, less easier for everyone.. but pushed to only want to operate for the benefit of institutional desires who pay them

(imagine CEO-employee's of any company invested in their own company. they would be more incentivised to make that company work better to then cause their investment to grow. instead of asking to be bailed out via other means outside the model)

Thanks for the response. But i don't think it's enough since,
1. You need some fiat to buy/invest on Bitcoin in first place.
2. New technology/feature usually doesn't have immediate impact on Bitcoin price.

[Danydee]

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.

Is funny to see how that thing is built, so they can donate to who they want so they favoritize him over the others?? and btw create a manipulation climate favoritising earning over the strict conduct ?!!

This platform should be shut down!

[franky1]

if you look at the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars the bitcoin core github maintainers have fundraised in recent years.
you should be asking those entitled devs to fund their underlings that help them out

[DooMAD]

Bottom line:  If you don't want to live in a world where other people can tell you what you can or can't do with your own money, then stop trying to interfere in what others do with theirs. 

I don't agree with lobbying when it comes to politics, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to tell people that they can't make donations.  Not least because such a totalitarian approach would solve nothing in an environment when we are literally using censorship-resistant money where no one can block or reverse your transactions.  If you're going to be an authoritarian wingnut here, at least try not to sound like a complete moron about it.   

It strikes me that those who are most vocally opposed to this are expressing a desire to control things that don't belong to them.  Fortunately, such people are powerless if we ignore them.  They have no influence whatsoever on the outcome because they aren't actually involved in any way, shape or form.  They could rant for decades and achieve absolutely nothing.

[we-btc]

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.

If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money.  With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.

Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.

I don't think that developing core was intended to be a money making job!

[franky1]

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.

not anymore
core made things more "backward compatible" so that it doesnt require user nodes to be network reedy with uptodate ruleset and format knowledge before a network change takes effect. thus users nodes do not even have any consensus effect on if a feature activates or not

its now just down to service nodes(economic nodes) of things like exchanges/popular institutional services which want to use these features for mass customers they custodian/accept payment for.. economic nodes which can mandate mining pool nodes to comply or else have blocks rejected. as seen happening in the past.. its a game of follow the leader now
if you want your transaction, blockreward seen by x,y,z services.. stay in compliance with the services choice of upgrade

If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money.  With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.

when the choice of protocol direction via node proposal selection is core vs.. core vs.. core.. is there really a choice
REKT campaigns have been done if any other brand attempted to propose upgrades, they were relegated to being treated as altcoin options should their proposals activate against the core roadmap

Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.

they already made it easier with "backward compatibility" where user nodes dont even need to upgrade when new core features upgrade.. the users nodes just blind passes the new style data as valid without actually checking.

[we-btc]

they already made it easier with "backward compatibility" where user nodes dont even need to upgrade when new core features upgrade.. the users nodes just blind passes the new style data as valid without actually checking.

Where is the Bitcoin that Satoshi created

Who is fighting for the Decentralized, purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash that gives people back their financial freedom and sovereignty 

Don't just accept financial servitude!!! Come on!!!

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't agree with lobbying when it comes to politics, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to tell people that they can't make donations.

This sounds similar as to installing surveillance cameras everywhere, inside every person's house-- completely violating everyone's privacy to prevent criminality. Or at least with that excuse. I am not entirely certain, but just as I do not believe that residing in the year 1984 would eliminate criminality, I also hold the view that "banning donations" would not necessarily deter lobbying.

Don't just accept financial servitude!!! Come on!!!

Please, for the love of God, put fruitloops1 on ignore. The fact that he's banned in the Dev & Tech board should tell you a lot about his technical viewpoints on Bitcoin. In general, he denies reality, derails topics, and can never have a constructive discussion with anyone.

[Abiky]

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.

Of course not! Banks' malpractices are the main reason why Bitcoin was invented in the first place. This is nothing more than a conflict of interest. The banksters will only look what's best for them instead of what's best for the people. Luckily for us, Bitcoin is open source. If it becomes too compromised, the community can fork away and make a new chain with decentralization in mind. Or they can move to BTC clones such as BCH and BSV.

If Satoshi was alive, he wouldn't want banks to get involved in the project. Perhaps, these entities will keep on-chain fees high to force everyone to move to centralized L2 networks (eg: Lightning Network). We can't predict what will happen in the future, so lets hope for the best.

[DooMAD]

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.

If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money.  With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.

Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.

It's incredibly easy to run most older versions, provided you don't go too far back.  It's also easy to run wallet software not published by Core at all.

But, keep in mind that "supporting" changes you'd like to support is one thing, but "blocking" changes that others support is not always possible.  And this has been the case from day one.  Some people think that individuals should have some sort of veto that allows them to prevent others from doing what they want to do.  Such people will always end up disappointed in an open-source environment where anyone can code what they want.

Perhaps, these entities will keep on-chain fees high to force everyone to move to centralized L2 networks (eg: Lightning Network). We can't predict what will happen in the future, so lets hope for the best.

The stance for some time now is that fees are entirely market-driven.  It's not something someone should arbitrarily decide.  So it's not about trying to "keep" fees lower or higher because the very act of trying to control them would be an act of centralisation.  No one individual or group is in a position to "keep" fees at any given level.

Arguing that anyone could or should make fees anything is a misguided request to make the system weaker and easier for someone to manipulate.  Bitcoin works the way it does for good reasons.  Most of the people who believe their ideas would "fix" Bitcoin (including certain people in this very thread) simply don't understand the reasons why it works like it does.

[OcTradism]

Where is the Bitcoin that Satoshi created

Who is fighting for the Decentralized, purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash that gives people back their financial freedom and sovereignty  ??

Over years since 2009, many versions of Bitcoin Core has been built and deployed so what's your reasons to use very old Bitcoin Core version?

Have to know there are changes in the protocol with upgrades, hard fork and by using newest Bitcoin Core version, you will be better compatibility with other Bitcoin users or on many platforms.

Now, let's see the magic from Bitcoin.

If you have a private key, you can import it to a wallet that can be either Bitcoin Core or any wallet software compatibles with the BIP, and get access to your coins.

[Fundamentals Of]

There's obviously some conflict of interest but it doesn't necessarily mean the works of the developers will all be done in consideration of whatever the donors have in mind, or so I hope. They're not employees of these rich companies after all. The best scenario would probably be avoiding donations from companies altogether following the path of Satoshi Nakamoto. That option would not even incite suspicions in the community. But for as long as the developers would not feel indebted to these businesses, I think they will remain independent.

[franky1]

It's incredibly easy to run most older versions, provided you don't go too far back.  It's also easy to run wallet software not published by Core at all.

But, keep in mind that "supporting" changes you'd like to support is one thing, but "blocking" changes that others support is not always possible.  And this has been the case from day one.

so doomad is finally admitting it.. oh wait he then backtracks to save himself
but what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority acceptance(consent) (consent of the masses=consensus) to activate new feature with/when majority readiness
but what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority rejection, stay in status quo(no change) when there was no majority readiness

Some people think that individuals should have some sort of veto that allows them to prevent others from doing what they want to do. Such people will always end up disappointed in an open-source environment where anyone can code what they want.

this is where doomad says misinformation stuff.. lets correct it..
individuals(centralised) should not have veto power over the masses(decentralised). instead masses(decentralised) should have veto power over the individual(centralised)
anyone can code, but a individual "anyone"(centralised) should not have controlling power to override the majority masses(decentralised)

however doomad prefers centralised CORE should have absolute centralised, un-scrutinised, unrestricted, unblockable power over the network
the current system of "backward compatibility" is that the network has now weaker security as it does not need majority readiness to accept new features to understand/validate each bytes need to exist on the networks blockchain.. thus core can now trojan in new things unnoticed, unchecked without network majority readiness

if nodes cant decide if a bad feature core wants doesnt activate, by not agreeing(via upgrading) because they see the flaw and dont want the flaw happening. then bad things can and have happened

doomad(and his forum family ilks like blackhatcoiner) does not believe in consent of the masses(decentralisation/the use of the solution of the byzantine generals issue) nor network security. he believes in "let core do what they want good or bad".. because he believes only core should determine, run, control, manage the network protocol.. good or bad.. and no one should decentrally scrutinise them

when people start thinking only core should make the decisions, offer proposals for on network changes and core should do what they like.. its called a central point of failure risk

oh and doomad and his ilk/clan doesnt believe in "one cpu one vote"(where many cpu exist on the network).. he prefers "one core, no vote"
nothing in doomad/blackhatcoiners preferences sound anywhere close to decentralisation

so its idiots like them and their fanclub clan of treating core as gods that should not be scrutinised.. that cry to the core gods (that are also moderators) to ban people that dare scrutinise core

doomad(and his half a dozen clan that idolise centralisation) still does not want to learn why bitcoin was invented to not be like the centralised governing banking system.. all because the annoyances caused by centralisation of bitcoin, benefits the subnetwork he prefers to make people move over to and abandon using bitcoin in the process (because he wants the annoyances/issues to continue)

[HmmMAA]

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

Don't forget LN , that's the trojan horse they're expecting to gain profits from . That's why all the funding from corporations to devs is headed towards the development of L2's leaving L1 out . The good thing is that they're too ignorant to understand that L2's are an impossible solution and are just burning money .

[DooMAD]

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

Don't forget LN , that's the trojan horse they're expecting to gain profits from . That's why all the funding from corporations to devs is headed towards the development of L2's leaving L1 out . The good thing is that they're too ignorant to understand that L2's are an impossible solution and are just burning money .

Anyone else find it a funny coincidence that the BSV user agrees with franky1?

Common goals are common, methinks.

Best of luck to anyone who thinks they can achieve global adoption of a single blockchain without utilising off-chain technology or totally centralising the entire network.  Your task is laughably implausible.

[HmmMAA]

Anyone else find it a funny coincidence that the BSV user agrees with franky1?

Common goals are common, methinks.

Best of luck to anyone who thinks they can achieve global adoption of a single blockchain without utilising off-chain technology or totally centralising the entire network.  Your task is laughably implausible.

Your definition of centralisation ? The problem is that you think that your node plays a significant role in the network . Well , guess what , it doesn't . Ordinals etc shows exactly that . Luke et al understand that only pool level matters , seems that you didn't get that yet . Decentralisation doesn't come from number of nodes , but from economic terms . If you try to understand how network originally worked you will come to a eureka moment at some point . Ofcourse , after 8 years of LN "development" you still can't understand that it can't work in a massive scale , so i don't expect that to happen in this life .  
 
You are great at labeling people , not a strange thing for a cult member . Any real arguments ? Even LN devs stand with my position that LN doesn't work .
Good luck with your LN trying to solve an NP hard problem .

I hope that people in here see that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal insults . But that's what bitcointalk has become , a place to earn money by writing rubbish about others and becoming a "respected" member by providing nothing . People like you and your cult have forced many really respected members to leave this place and never come back . Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

 

 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Good luck with your LN trying to solve an NP hard problem .

Transaction selection is NP-hard, but the software isn't trying to find the ideal fee; just one that is cheap enough. That's why they use variations of Dijkstra and A*, and not these algorithms per se. In LND, for instance, you can check yourself how optimized it is, comparably to a simple Dijkstra algorithm implementation: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/routing/pathfind.go#L494-L504.

But, I don't understand why you focus on routing algorithm being NP-hard, and ignore mining which is NP-hard itself. The typical way to resolve this, is just to select a "good enough solution" rather finding the ideal. This is why you can find cases of blocks which could include higher paying transactions instead. System works pretty fine after all.

[HmmMAA]

Good luck with your LN trying to solve an NP hard problem .

Transaction selection is NP-hard, but the software isn't trying to find the ideal fee; just one that is cheap enough. That's why they use variations of Dijkstra and A*, and not these algorithms per se. In LND, for instance, you can check yourself how optimized it is, comparably to a simple Dijkstra algorithm implementation: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/routing/pathfind.go#L494-L504.

But, I don't understand why you focus on routing algorithm being NP-hard, and ignore mining which is NP-hard itself. The typical way to resolve this, is just to select a "good enouch solution" rather finding the ideal. This is why you can find cases of blocks which could include higher paying transactions instead. System works pretty fine after all.

I agree , but mining isn't based on rapspis to work . To find an optimised solution in an NP-hard problem computational power is needed . Do you think your rapspi will be able to handle a massive amount of paths and liquidity if/when LN is implemented ? And it's not me that says it won't work , it's their devs . But still people in here claim that it will work . Should i listen to the devs or members in here ? Except if doomad is a pseudonym of some LN dev , in that case i'd like to hear his opinion . If not then what he says is pure bull crap.


https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-August/003203.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html
https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv5jyfh9gp2qnhruevrph39s2mspzfw3e9mx5avg0wenltrdjnnhgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3yamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vgq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tmnv9k8g6tkddsjummjvupzp3wd64ehu3l4gfkfm63yxqfpztkk97a8k5683p5pvphhnadtj6p2xgpax5

Edit . LN is even more centralised than mining . Have a look at how much liquidity and channels belong to the top 10 . All small players are leaving it because they know it's an unfair fight against big players , contrary to how mining works .

[NotATether]

Bitcoin Core does not have an official donations area as far as I know. Many of the core developers are individually sponsored. So this question turns into: Is it okay for Bitcoin Core contributors to be funded by banks, and the answer to that question depends on each contributor's personal preference.

Other projects such as LN, RGB are a different story.

[BlackHatCoiner]

To find an optimised solution in an NP-hard problem computational power is needed

And as I've already demonstrated, miners choose to go with the "good enough" solution, rather than the ideal. It is simply not worth the effort to find the ideal solution with the given cost.

Do you think your rapspi will be able to handle a massive amount of paths and liquidity if/when LN is implemented ?

Lightning is implemented. The algorithms used are as I've already said optimized not for the cheapest, but for the cheap enough fee. It will work on even larger network, likely less accurately.

But still people in here claim that it will work

There is a variety of opinions about LN in this board, and I highly doubt we all believe it will work flawlessly. There are tradeoffs, just as with everything.

LN is even more centralised than mining . Have a look at how much liquidity and channels belong to the top 10

Now, who's arbitrarily using the word "centralized"?  

[kryptqnick]

Bitcoin is about freedom and openness, so anyone can make an impact, including financial impact. The Forbes article says that VanEck and Bitwise are planning to donate a part of ETF profits to support Bitcoin Core developers. It's a donation, as a sign of appreciation. I don't think it'll come with strings attached. If it does, developers can just reject the money. But overall, I think it's just something companies do to improve their reputation, to appear nice to potential clients.
Another reason, mentioned in the article, is that they expect that a financial reward will stimulate highly professional people to work on Bitcoin Core, I suppose. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, though, because the sentence is vague.
I don't think financial support from corporations is a problem per se. After all, since they do business with Bitcoin, it's in their best interest for Bitcoin to work properly, to be strong and safe, as bug-free as possible.

[m2017]

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.

Why should commercial banks make a donation (for the development) of an alternative monetary system, which is potentially a “killer” of their business, even if these are banks engaged in brokerage activities?

If these donors care so much about bitcoin, then why haven’t they integrated it into their system yet?

Investors, for example, but not donors, may demand something in return. I would like to believe that the Bitcoin Core developers remain impartial and do everything only for the well-being of bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison.  If I thought you were merely a victim of the scam, I'd be more tolerant of you.  But from everything I'm seeing, you appear to be part of that scam.  And that means I'm not holding back.

I hope that people in here see that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal insults .

You appear to be of the mistaken impression that all ideas are equal and valid.  This is not the case with BSV.  You are not on equal footing.  You do not deserve equal treatment.  This isn't a discussion where we pretend there is some semblance of validity to the malicious intentions of the criminal figurehead of your shitcoin.  The only thing your scam project and its supporters deserve is derision.  All the technical arguments have already been made.  I don't see what's left to discuss, aside from how dreadful a person you are for supporting an identity thief, their ongoing con where they prey on impressionable newbies, and the war they have declared on this community.

[0t3p0t]

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.

Exactly. But my question here is why the heck do banks have to do this? Control? This is something fishy for me to be honest. Well on the other hand, giving a donation to the Bitcoin core team is  for me a very generous way of saying thank you for the job well done. Donated funds can also be used for future upgrades and improvements for sure.

[franky1]

Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison. 

yep HmmMAA is promoting a scam coin

but doomad promotes a different network too.. which has flaws, bugs, and bottlenecks. which for years have not been solved..

both people are as bad as each other.. both trying to compete to offramp people away from bitcoin. both wanting to ruin bitcoin with annoyances to promote their other networks they prefer

[HmmMAA]

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison.  If I thought you were merely a victim of the scam, I'd be more tolerant of you.  But from everything I'm seeing, you appear to be part of that scam.  And that means I'm not holding back.

The only scam that currently exists is btc . Ot promotes as bitcoin while has nothing to do with it . Segwit , RBF , LN and more has nothing to do with bitcoin . It's the classic misunderstanding that ethereum classic is the fork . Lopp is proud that 0.06% of current's btc code is from the original satoshi code , i guess you are proud too .

All the technical arguments have already been made.  I don't see what's left to discuss, aside from how dreadful a person you are for supporting an identity thief, their ongoing con where they prey on impressionable newbies, and the war they have declared on this community.

Just look at how many people are crying about high fees and the inequality segwit brought after years of it's implementation . You even see maxis start discussing about a hard fork . It will be fun to see that happening after close to 10 years of blocksize wars and i'd like on what side you will stand . But as i said , you don't give a dime about bitcoin , the most important thing for you is to lure people into your pegged para-btc network .

yep HmmMAA is promoting a scam coin

but doomad promotes a different network too.. which has flaws, bugs, and bottlenecks. which for years have not been solved..

both people are as bad as each other.. both trying to compete to offramp people away from bitcoin. both wanting to ruin bitcoin with annoyances to promote their other networks they prefer

I definitely don't promote they way i get how promotion works , i support both bch and bsv because they are closer to the vision satoshi had about bitcoin . Btc is just an altcoin that has nothing to do with the original and changes in code proves it . How you treat so far btc supporters back what i say .
I'm not the one that stayed on the network that has the original ticker and still think that btc is bitcoin . I went to the network that works according to how i think bitcoin should work , how bitcoin was meant to be , as an electronic cash system . You just stay in btc and complain because you think that bitcoin is just a ticker . We can both have our opinions . Time will prove who's wrong and who's right . Seems that both of us are not young so i hope we will have the time to see the result .

[oktana]

It’s safe to say that it is conflict of interest but I don’t think it matters if their intentions are clean. As far as they are not against the anonymity and be-your-own-bank idea of Bitcoin, they can find with any amount they want to. At the end of the day Bitcoin will enjoy the benefits. Also, considering that they are supporting Bitcoin, I hope their banking system allows people to trade Bitcoin else it wouldn’t make sense.

[we-btc]

It’s safe to say that it is conflict of interest but I don’t think it matters if their intentions are clean. As far as they are not against the anonymity and be-your-own-bank idea of Bitcoin, they can find with any amount they want to. At the end of the day Bitcoin will enjoy the benefits. Also, considering that they are supporting Bitcoin, I hope their banking system allows people to trade Bitcoin else it wouldn’t make sense.

Do you think it is a benefit to Bitcoin and the community for Bitcoin to be traded as an ETF or would it be better if people used it peer-to-peer?

Financial institutions of all types are promoting bitcoin as an investment to be held by the institution giving them control of the asset and the transactions.

This is how they plan to move people away from using Bitcoin as a currency.  It is working!!

[oktana]

It’s safe to say that it is conflict of interest but I don’t think it matters if their intentions are clean. As far as they are not against the anonymity and be-your-own-bank idea of Bitcoin, they can find with any amount they want to. At the end of the day Bitcoin will enjoy the benefits. Also, considering that they are supporting Bitcoin, I hope their banking system allows people to trade Bitcoin else it wouldn’t make sense.

Do you think it is a benefit to Bitcoin and the community for Bitcoin to be traded as an ETF or would it be better if people used it peer-to-peer?

Financial institutions of all types are promoting bitcoin as an investment to be held by the institution giving them control of the asset and the transactions.

This is how they plan to move people away from using Bitcoin as a currency.  It is working!!

I totally agree with you. They aren’t the ones who even started it, we Bitcoin enthusiasts, traders, holders, etc started it by making it seem like the most valuable thing about Bitcoin is the increase in price which then becomes profitable. They are now seeing that people already carrying that ideology, for example the whole ETF thing, which they are probably supporting so it kills the idea of using it as payment. To be honest, I do not think they’ll support Bitcoin if the only perception of Bitcoin was that you’d eliminate the bank (them).

[G-aluminum]

Yes of course because it’s will transactions safe

[cryptosize]

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.

I wouldn't worry that much.

People have said the same thing about Linux and Microsoft's involvement:

https://rcpmag.com/articles/2012/04/04/microsoft-credited-as-a-top-linux-kernel-contributor.aspx
https://thenextweb.com/news/in-your-face-google

Can someone honestly claim that Linux (Kernel) is compromised? Even though it's open-source?

Even if that was the case (it's not), there are still alternatives such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.

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.

Bitcoin is not much different compared to Linux.

It's slowly becoming a viable "commercial product" (in terms of ETF offerings).

Also, BTC needs to remain decentralized to maintain its high valuation (and go even higher).

They cannot turn it into a centralized currency (CBDC) and still expect it to cost a lot.

oh and doomad and his ilk/clan doesnt believe in "one cpu one vote"

Oh, come on, "1 CPU = 1 vote" has been long dead (ever since ASICs came out).

If you want that, better move to Monero (but I guess your BTC stash is too valuable, so you're not gonna do it).

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

Don't forget LN , that's the trojan horse they're expecting to gain profits from . That's why all the funding from corporations to devs is headed towards the development of L2's leaving L1 out . The good thing is that they're too ignorant to understand that L2's are an impossible solution and are just burning money .

Anyone else find it a funny coincidence that the BSV user agrees with franky1?

Common goals are common, methinks.

Best of luck to anyone who thinks they can achieve global adoption of a single blockchain without utilising off-chain technology or totally centralising the entire network.  Your task is laughably implausible.

Wanna know what's funny about HmmMAA?

He claims other people are conspiracy theorists, all while he's the biggest conspiracy theorist (he believes NSA/CIA are behind BTC/Satoshi Nakamoto and also he believes that DCG/MasterCard control the BTC Core dev team).

He's the biggest hypocrite you're gonna find on this forum.

Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .

You do not love Bitcoin (BTC), you love BSV.

You hate BTC with a passion and want to see it destroyed. Be honest for once.

Franky1 might be eccentric, but at least he doesn't love shitcoins/Bitcoin forks with tons of 51% attacks:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

I agree , but mining isn't based on rapspis to work . To find an optimised solution in an NP-hard problem computational power is needed . Do you think your rapspi will be able to handle a massive amount of paths and liquidity if/when LN is implemented ?

You remind me of WAntilles on adslgr who claimed years ago that ARM CPUs (on iPhone) are "Fisher Price toys" compared to x86. Therefore iPhone is "DOA", it has no "future".

That didn't age well, did it? Especially considering Apple's ARM progress.

A new Raspberry has been released, with a faster ARM CPU and more RAM... maybe you should check it out.

Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison.  If I thought you were merely a victim of the scam, I'd be more tolerant of you.  But from everything I'm seeing, you appear to be part of that scam.  And that means I'm not holding back.

Not only that, but he also defends Calvin Ayre's predictions:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-price-crash-zero-says-204253747.html

And you know who Calvin Ayre is, right?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn0D09YaMAQF9Uj?format=jpg&name=small
https://files.catbox.moe/ve2wtn.jpg

We've tried to explain to him many times before that the free market has decided which blockchain has the highest valuation AND hashrate, but he still doesn't get it.

He's so butthurt that he believes there's a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy organized by bad actors (forum members/BTC maxis) against BSV, "the only true Bitcoin envisioned by Satoshi".

Watch him trying to attack me, even though everything I've said can be verified by his posts on this forum.

ps: If you pay close attention to him, you'll see that he's enamored by Craig Wright and he even admits that he's a pricky personality.

Guess what? HmmMAA is equally pricky judging by his insults to other members!

Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison.  If I thought you were merely a victim of the scam, I'd be more tolerant of you.  But from everything I'm seeing, you appear to be part of that scam.  And that means I'm not holding back.

The only scam that currently exists is btc . Btc is just an altcoin

Spoken like a true flat earther.

Or maybe like Calvin Ayre too:

https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1577732304440815616

This is to conform with existing property law. The alts like BTC etc will be forced to follow this also..or they will be wiped out by regulators.

This didn't age too well either, right?

yep HmmMAA is promoting a scam coin

but doomad promotes a different network too.. which has flaws, bugs, and bottlenecks. which for years have not been solved..

both people are as bad as each other.. both trying to compete to offramp people away from bitcoin. both wanting to ruin bitcoin with annoyances to promote their other networks they prefer

I definitely don't promote they way i get how promotion works , i support both bch and bsv because they are closer to the vision satoshi had about bitcoin

Stop lying, you've confessed that you join this forum to bribe users with BSV (you send PMs to lure people into the BSV ecosystem -> that's what drug dealers do too).

There is a very famous and young member on this forum/thread that accepted BSV donations from you. Don't make me tell his name, I don't want to expose him. You know what I'm saying is 100% true.

It’s safe to say that it is conflict of interest but I don’t think it matters if their intentions are clean. As far as they are not against the anonymity and be-your-own-bank idea of Bitcoin, they can find with any amount they want to. At the end of the day Bitcoin will enjoy the benefits. Also, considering that they are supporting Bitcoin, I hope their banking system allows people to trade Bitcoin else it wouldn’t make sense.

Do you think it is a benefit to Bitcoin and the community for Bitcoin to be traded as an ETF or would it be better if people used it peer-to-peer?

Financial institutions of all types are promoting bitcoin as an investment to be held by the institution giving them control of the asset and the transactions.

This is how they plan to move people away from using Bitcoin as a currency.  It is working!!

I believe you should get BTC and store it/use it in your own personal wallet.

ETF was made for the big guys (the likes of Bill Gates etc.)

[franky1]

I'm not the one that stayed on the network that has the original ticker and still think that btc is bitcoin . I went to the network that works according to how i think bitcoin should work , how bitcoin was meant to be , as an electronic cash system . You just stay in btc and complain because you think that bitcoin is just a ticker . We can both have our opinions . Time will prove who's wrong and who's right . Seems that both of us are not young so i hope we will have the time to see the result .

bitcoin is not just a ticker.. you suggesting that people think bitcoin is just a ticker, reveals more about your misunderstanding of the whole economics, utility and functionality of what makes bitcoin, bitcoin

heres the thing though
even your beloved BSV leader is in court suggesting his BSV is not bitcoin.. because he wants something from BTC. thus even he thinks BTC is bitcoin because instead of just editing BSV to steal "satoshi stash" and get what he wants.. he wants BTC "satoshi stash" because he admits BTC is bitcoin
(he pretends to be bitcoin creator and pretend bitcoin was stolen from him)
also he isnt chasing after the other hundred forks.. not even BCH because he doesnt believe any of them are "bitcoin" but just airdrop altcoins

oh and time has proven BTC is bitcoin.. goodbye

[blckhawk]

Yeah I don't think that's a good idea, sure they've got the money but it's out of what Satoshi and bitcoin stands for, freedom from the traditional banking system. Remember that when this happens, these banks will surely try to put in their ideas on how bitcoin should work and should process so it's not a good idea, it will be a problem that will present itself when it's too late already.

[HmmMAA]

oh and time has proven BTC is bitcoin.. goodbye

I'll stick to Mike Hearn's opinion in his response to Greg :

Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!


Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason".

But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people. Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products only for today's tiny user base."

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009726.html

So , good luck defending Greg's coin . Goodbye and have a nice day .

[franky1]

i too have not been happy with the decisions greg and his ilk peers of blocksteam have roadmapped bitcoin towards, but  it is still bitcoin

even the real satoshi announced gavin to take over as lead "chief science officer", and then the batton passed to greg maxwell as lead "chief scientists/technology of bitcoin" and so on.. even merchants and services, and even governments recognise btc as bitcoin

heck BSV is announced as something new 15 November 2018,, not 2009

even funnier BSV did not fork from bitcoin, but from BCH
there is a deviation of 2017-2018 block data that shows that BSV is not a twin sister of btc. but a daughter of BCH which is a daughter of BTC
so BSV is a grandchild of BTC not a twin of BTC

yep BSV is a offspring(fork) 2 generations below bitcoin.. BSV is not the original.. hard blockdata and code prove it
an example..
lets take the 20th of august block#480,000. BSV used the BCH chain data. where by block #480000 on BSV had 21 transactions which is what BCH had
BSV and BCH had 21 transactions but BTC had 2117 transactions

yep the 21 transaction of BCH/BSV following was not even 1% following.. it was literally nearly an empty block no one used, wanted

again for emphasis
BSV is a offspring(fork) 2 generations below bitcoin.. BSV is not the original.. hard blockdata and code prove it

[DooMAD]

I'll stick to Mike Hearn's opinion

'Appeal to authority' is generally considered a logical fallacy at the best of times, but particularly when it's someone who is considered by many to be effectively ostracised from the community because of their views about blacklisting and other controversial matters.  If Hearn and Wright are your guiding luminaries, you are beyond lost.  Your circle is only going to grow smaller over time as people realise that's not the correct path to follow.

[HmmMAA]

'Appeal to authority' is generally considered a logical fallacy at the best of times, but particularly when it's someone who is considered by many to be effectively ostracised from the community because of their views about blacklisting and other controversial matters.  If Hearn and Wright are your guiding luminaries, you are beyond lost.  Your circle is only going to grow smaller over time as people realise that's not the correct path to follow.

I would call it an appeal to sanity but i guess it's hard for you to understand . Read the circumstances that you can't call something an appeal to authority , it's not "one size fits all" .
Ostracised and considered by many ? The many that now start to understand that the 1 MB limit should be raised ? The many that are closing their channels on LN ? The many that face high fees and cry like babies that bad miners are selfish evil entities ? The LN devs that say that unfortunately L2's cannot work ?
Well guess what , these problems were mentioned years ago , but your "authority" claim back then that things will be fine . Aren't 8 years enough to understand that you have been tricked ? 

[EarnOnVictor]

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.

Well, I do not see it as you made it look here, and what I even read in the article posted was a donation, and this is fine. Well, talking about banks if that is what really happens, I don't still see the reason why we should be heating the polity, this is just unnecessary. Do you think that Bitcoin projects will be done without money involved, especially this time when Bitcoin is in the mainstream of the financial market and ETF is approved? This, of course, would have increased the cost of services, you do not think that this will just be done at the expense of individuals, groups or companies without plans, loans (if possible) and expectations for reward in some cases?

All these are being planned well before execution, and those who seek funds or receive donations know the reason why they do that, and this doesn't mean that the banks that will fund them will be part of that project, they are only offering funds and doing their business. Even if they will be a partner in it, why not? This is a business opportunity, and for banks to be involved in a crypto project is also a welcome development, and not otherwise as some of you will make it look like. If banks now say they do not want to deal with crypto projects, the same people will be the ones to talk opposition. What do you even want?

I'm just saying generally...

[gabbie2010]

If there is not going to be any distortion or manipulation of the Blockchain with regards to the sponsoring or donations to Bitcoin core team by the bank who invariably happens to dislike cryptos due to it feature as a store of value then there is no issues and it's a welcome development, I hope the Bitcoin core team would be transparent enough in doing their job thus thoroughly checked and monitored by other developers, I believe it's high time the scalability issue of Blockchain is finally resolved to fast track swift transactions I think this issue if not resolve on time would make global adoption of Bitcoin as a payment gateway particularly Lightning network LN.

[DooMAD]

Aren't 8 years enough to understand that you have been tricked ? 

You're absolutely hilarious.  Haven't laughed that hard in a while, heh.  From another topic:

At this point i'm 95% certain that he is satoshi or was one of the architects behind the pseudonym .

"He" being Craig Scammer Wright.  If anyone has been tricked, it's you.  Maybe one day soon you'll come back to reality.  Until then, enjoy your delerium.

Actually, I'm being too charitable.  You're not stupid, you know that piece of shit fraudster isn't satoshi.  This is just another wilful deception on your part.  You're only here participating in these topics in a feeble attempt to sucker people into using your worthless clonecoin.  To call you an opportunist scumbag would be an understatement.

[cryptosize]

Aren't 8 years enough to understand that you have been tricked ? 

You're absolutely hilarious.  Haven't laughed that hard in a while, heh.  From another topic:

At this point i'm 95% certain that he is satoshi or was one of the architects behind the pseudonym .

"He" being Craig Scammer Wright.  If anyone has been tricked, it's you.  Maybe one day soon you'll come back to reality.  Until then, enjoy your delerium.

Actually, I'm being too charitable.  You're not stupid, you know that piece of shit fraudster isn't satoshi.  This is just another wilful deception on your part.  You're only here participating in these topics in a feeble attempt to sucker people into using your worthless clonecoin.  To call you an opportunist scumbag would be an understatement.

Let's just say Franky1 is a saint compared to HmmMAA!

[franky1]

ok now doomad is starting to sound a little too much like me... im starting to worry.

anyway, back to the topic

devs can always be free to get their own independent income to cover their real life costs. but when such incomes arrive as sponsored deals requiring certain goals related to bitcoins direction. we should scrutinise them, not treat them as untouchable gods

[DooMAD]

Let's just say Franky1 is a saint compared to HmmMAA!

I mean... they're both cancers, but I've come to realise that franky1 is largely benign.

franky1's ideals are dangerous and misguided, but no one is *implementing* those ideals.
He's all but confirmed he's never going to publish any code and isn't prepared to pay anyone to write any code.
Most developers appear to view him as a walking punchline and don't take him seriously in the slightest, so they won't write any code for him.
He's too obnoxious and demanding to work with collaboratively, and would swiftly alienate anyone who tried, so no code will be produced that way.
His personality has all the charm and appeal of a soiled undergarment, so it's unlikely he's ever going to sweet-talk anyone to write any code for him.

As such, he can't actually cause any harm.  All of the damage he could theoretically do can't actually be done.  There's no false path he can lead anyone down.  No one can lose their money listening to the unrelenting whining he does because he has no real alternative.  That's the extent of it.  All he does is make a lot of noise.  He's an annoyance, not a direct threat (which is why I've got him on ignore now).  

By comparison, HmmMAA and the other BSV supporters are a tangible threat.  Their ideals exist in the real world and can cause genuine harm.  People can legitimately lose vast sums of money from buying into their dangerous beliefs.  It's a malignant cancer that could spread if not treated.

[franky1]

Let's just say Franky1 is a saint compared to HmmMAA!

I mean... they're both cancers, but I've come to realise that franky1 is largely benign.

franky1's ideals are dangerous and misguided, but no one is *implementing* those ideals

doomads ideals are supporting other networks and only changing bitcoin to support the migration of people towards other networks of middleman control. where the danger of going agaisnt his ideals lays in breaking his other network adoption plans
much the same as the games HmmMAA a Leez currently support

im sure within 6 years doomad and HmmMAA and Leez will join forces and be best friends promoting how bitcoin should not progress for bitcoiners but should progress for other networkers priorities.. they just need to fight over whos other network should be the priority underclass network, to which they want bitcoin network to serve

both doomad(and his chums) and BSV people are happy if their centralised gods are sell-outs to their sponsors where no one should scrutinise their gods or question their morals or motives

as for me or anyone not core, thus not writing code for bitcoin network upgrade proposals.
you might want to read doomads 8 years of abusing people who dare make efforts to propose anything (most abuses are called REKT campaigns, to which all proposals not fashioned by core are deemed altcoin announcements in doomads eyes because he does not want people actually coding bitcoin upgrade proposals, unless they are the benevolent core dev hierarchy of gods).. it is a comical read that belongs in the religious philosophical comedy section of literature

[Casdinyard]

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

I mean isn't their shit more of a sponsorship and not necessarily similar to what the banks could offer the core devs should they resort to getting funded by fiat banks? Not really sure about that so don't quote me on it or perhaps correct me if I'm wrong lol. Plus I don't think they actively changed the code to anger the masses, they could've just changed the block size to anything other than 1 mb a la Rick and Morty style and that would've spurned a massive riot in this forum and beyond, so why bother with the small-time inconveniences?

In my opinion, there's a good discussion to be had with the idea of getting funded/supported by the fiat market. However, I don't think we'll get that support from the banks really. The thing is that they made it a point to not deal with anything that has anything to do with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. The very few banks who do so bury shit that would've exploited cryptocurrency users and quite possibly the core devs into piles and piles of paperwork and stipulations, so getting the money to keep the whole machine and system going's gonna be the short end of the stick most likely.

I'm thinking we should look elsewhere if the core devs are really that short on the money and is in need of some funding. We got crypto corporations out there that would gladly get these devs signed onto something that would keep their mouths fed for years for less stipulations than they would've gotten themselves into should they go through with bank deals.

[franky1]

i call it a sponsorship because like all sponsorships they get paid set amounts if they meet goals or hit milestones
(much like those school long distance/field runs/marathons that are sponsored 50p/50c per mile run)
they only get paid if they do X things. where the activity achieved promotes/elevates/brings ROI to the businesses

unlike donations that have no conditions

even funnier is if you dare ask a blockstream, brink, chaincodelab about their income and deals they will say that its 'commercially sensitive data' and wont tell the bitcoin community.

it then gets worse when the same core devs with 'force merge' code ability are also the moderators and chairs/comity of all the main technical discussion platforms

it even gets worse when those not of core hierarchy are seen as threats to bitcoin. being called "totalitarian take-over" if releasing code, or benign(so ignore) if not releasing code.. thus never allowing non-core people to even get to propose things in idea or code format due to things like REKT campaigns and witch-hunts of treating non-core proposals as threats

when it gets to a point that core formed a hierarchy of control, power, privilege
when it gets to a point that the decentralised userbase of bitcoin should not scrutinise core
when it gets to a point that IF decentralised userbase of bitcoin should find flaws and try to highlight them, get told to shut up or be banned
when it gets to a point that the decentralised userbase of bitcoin should not ask for features because no one should freely ask anything of core
when it gets to a point that open source becomes like a newspaper.. open pages to read, but closed door to becoming a editor/reviewer of said newpaper

then things get too centralised with core being too powerful and funded by the types that dont have the best interests in bitcoiners needs

..
we SHOULD actually get back to a position where multiple full node brands work symbiotically for the network..  offering proposals for the network where by differing node brands are not treated as enemies/opposition for offering proposals. nor relegated to being treated as 'forks to altcoins'. whereby the features activate only when the network is deemed network ready by the majority(consensus) to understand, interpret and validate such new features.. unlike the current scenario that core can slide new things in without network readiness. due to the softened methods they employed

[DapanasFruit]

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.

I think that there should be 100% transparency here so the Bitcoin and crypto community are aware of the things going on and that we should be watchful. I am sure that these capitalists have their own financial interest on things they are doing, though we also have to consider that organizations can fund something without expecting something in return. I am just wondering why there is no big movement coming from Bitcoin supporters and enthusiasts to instead crowdsource the Bitcoin Core development...or has there been one already?

[franky1]

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.

I think that there should be 100% transparency here so the Bitcoin and crypto community are aware of the things going on and that we should be watchful. I am sure that these capitalists have their own financial interest on things they are doing, though we also have to consider that organizations can fund something without expecting something in return. I am just wondering why there is no big movement coming from Bitcoin supporters and enthusiasts to instead crowdsource the Bitcoin Core development...or has there been one already?

there used to be. but that went centralised to.. namely examples of "bitcoin foundation"

sidenote
github has features where people can individually donate/sponsor a dev. and many devs publish their bitcoin addresses on their own websites/social media...
but when it comes to organisations making formal deals with core devs under employment of a company/brand. then we should be scrutinising those deals openly

now with all that said.
the devs of bitcoin core that do the maintaining (not talking about the volunteers they allow to spell check/translate to appear diverse) are highly paid already.

[DooMAD]

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.

I think that there should be 100% transparency here so the Bitcoin and crypto community are aware of the things going on and that we should be watchful. I am sure that these capitalists have their own financial interest on things they are doing, though we also have to consider that organizations can fund something without expecting something in return. I am just wondering why there is no big movement coming from Bitcoin supporters and enthusiasts to instead crowdsource the Bitcoin Core development...or has there been one already?

It may not be the sinister intrigue everyone's assuming it is.

The companies in question here are ones that are running some of these new Bitcoin ETFs.  The funds they are offering to the developers are derived from the profits of running those ETFs.  They may already have everything they need and they're simply offering to give something back to ensure development continues. 

If you already had a 'golden goose', you wouldn't let it starve, would you?  You'd pay just a little bit to feed the thing, so it continues to lay golden eggs.  Investing in the source of your wealth is just good business sense.

[cryptosize]

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.

I think that there should be 100% transparency here so the Bitcoin and crypto community are aware of the things going on and that we should be watchful. I am sure that these capitalists have their own financial interest on things they are doing, though we also have to consider that organizations can fund something without expecting something in return. I am just wondering why there is no big movement coming from Bitcoin supporters and enthusiasts to instead crowdsource the Bitcoin Core development...or has there been one already?

It may not be the sinister intrigue everyone's assuming it is.

The companies in question here are ones that are running some of these new Bitcoin ETFs.  The funds they are offering to the developers are derived from the profits of running those ETFs.  They may already have everything they need and they're simply offering to give something back to ensure development continues.  

If you already had a 'golden goose', you wouldn't let it starve, would you?  You'd pay just a little bit to feed the thing, so it continues to lay golden eggs.  Investing in the source of your wealth is just good business sense.

Exactly.

Nobody cries that Linux is taken over by Microsoft.

Linux development requires money, so somebody has to fund it. It's no longer a hobby project by Linus Torvalds.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-isnt-worried-about-microsoft-taking-over-linux/

[tread93]

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

Wow I guess this just gives clear context on the extent people are willing to go to try to stop bitcoin, they can't fully stop it so they resort to mildly inconvenience the users lol must be a frustrating line of work to be in lol

[franky1]

Linux development requires money, so somebody has to fund it. It's no longer a hobby project by Linus Torvalds.

bitcoin is money
if the devs cannot profit from the thing they manage.. they are in the wrong career

its like devs that program SWIFT (G-10 international payment transfers), but needing to beg for yuan(not g-10) to survive, and tailor swift to operate better for non g-10 transfers and make it annoying for g-10 transfers

if an american banker dev cant survive on US dollar.. he shouldnt be an american banker dev, he should go off-board and work for chinese payment systems

most of the exploits are made by the core devs(devs that have been around even during 2011-14) so they had ample opportunity to accumulate coin for themselves to stay independent.
(many are rich) but still willing to accept the golden handshakes of institutional money to then programs features that only benefit institutions
by the way
doomad(and his echo chamber group) wants the annoying ordinal spam that creates unspendable 1-330sat utxo's to never be made to be stopped..
(wants the annoyances to continue).. yet
doomad wants people spending re-spendable/consolidatable amounts of 10,000-1,000,000 sat ($4.80-$480) to stop using the bitcoin network
because he wants real spendable retail purchases of coffee, pizza, grocery amounts to happen on his preferred subnetwork

where he can syphon routing fee's from them on the other network each payment. because he cant sneak fee's from relaying on the bitcoin network
so now you understand doomads mindset

[darkangel11]

I'd start with the idea of freedom.
Nobody forces a person to become a bitcoin dev.
Nobody forces another person to pay a dev.
Nobody forces a dev to accept payments.
Am I right up to this point?

Let's say a dev is not financed by anyone and quits. Do we benefit from it? Does the dev?
Let's say a dev is financed by an anonymous third party via donations. Do we care who that third party is?
Let's say a dev is financed by a known third party. Should we care what that third party is? If we do, what can we do about it, because it seems like nothing but maybe voice our dislike.

Personally, I don't care whether the source of money is known or unknown, as long as devs do their job.
It's like asking if it's fine for banks to be buying bitcoin. What if they decide to get 10% of all BTC for sale? Are you going to stop using bitcoin just because a bank became a large holder?

[franky1]

I'd start with the idea of freedom.
Nobody forces a person to become a bitcoin dev.
Nobody forces another person to pay a dev.
Nobody forces a dev to accept payments.
Am I right up to this point?

Let's say a dev is not financed by anyone and quits. Do we benefit from it? Does the dev?
Let's say a dev is financed by an anonymous third party via donations. Do we care who that third party is?
Let's say a dev is financed by a known third party. Should we care what that third party is? If we do, what can we do about it, because it seems like nothing but maybe voice our dislike.

Personally, I don't care whether the source of money is known or unknown, as long as devs do their job.
It's like asking if it's fine for banks to be buying bitcoin. What if they decide to get 10% of all BTC for sale? Are you going to stop using bitcoin just because a bank became a large holder?

id start the same way, until i start seeing devs doing some shady crap that changes bitcoin in ways that actually dont benefit the decentralised individuals of bitcoin, but make it annoying for said individuals of bitcoin just to benefit institutions... then finding out institutions are the ones funding devs, then makes me and others start questioning things.. and if devs start saying "its commercially sensitive information" thats whe even more questions should arise

also. devs are not immortal gods that require churches that need donations/bribes, employment as bishops and priests to keep the religion alive.
devs can retire and devs can leave even in paid roles. they are only human. devs can be replaced by better people
so dont fear a dev leaving by thinking we should put up with their crap because they are a known entity.. dont be afraid. dont keep dead wood around that poison the forest just because you think bitcoin will break without them specifically

[Abiky]

Do you think it is a benefit to Bitcoin and the community for Bitcoin to be traded as an ETF or would it be better if people used it peer-to-peer?

Financial institutions of all types are promoting bitcoin as an investment to be held by the institution giving them control of the asset and the transactions.

This is how they plan to move people away from using Bitcoin as a currency.  It is working!!

ETFs are meant to move people away from self-custody of their Bitcoin. It will concentrate power on big institutional investment companies as they accumulate most of the network's circulating supply. I'd say Bitcoin's use case as a truly "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash" system is already diminishing. By depending on centralized exchanges and/or institutions, we're bringing back the single point of failure (middleman) Bitcoin was meant to avoid in the first place. It's best for Bitcoin Core's development to be funded by anything other than banks. They will push their own ideals to try to destroy the revolution. It's a conflict of interest.

Fortunately, the code is open source. The community might side with an older version of the code, if things get "tough" in the long run. The majority decides. Not banks. We can't predict the future, so lets hope for the best.

[Wind_FURY]

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

 

FUD by frankandbeans.

You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?

[DooMAD]

I'd start with the idea of freedom.
Nobody forces a person to become a bitcoin dev.
Nobody forces another person to pay a dev.
Nobody forces a dev to accept payments.
Am I right up to this point?

Let's say a dev is not financed by anyone and quits. Do we benefit from it? Does the dev?
Let's say a dev is financed by an anonymous third party via donations. Do we care who that third party is?
Let's say a dev is financed by a known third party. Should we care what that third party is? If we do, what can we do about it, because it seems like nothing but maybe voice our dislike.

Personally, I don't care whether the source of money is known or unknown, as long as devs do their job.
It's like asking if it's fine for banks to be buying bitcoin. What if they decide to get 10% of all BTC for sale? Are you going to stop using bitcoin just because a bank became a large holder?

Exactly.  Actions always speak louder than words.  Those who act with purpose and just "get on with it" will always achieve more than those who won't lift a finger to enact change.  Don't stop to ask for permission.  Just do, then see who does the same.


Those who can, will.
Those who can't, whine.

[franky1]

FUD by frankandbeans.

You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?

no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what you recite

but your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers
you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad

heck you cant even think up an original insult and instead use his buzzword insults too..

also you are completely clueless and misinformed about the actions of 2017. no wonder you keep proclaiming you are gaslight. but you refuse to note who is the one lighting and fueling your fire.

if we use religious analogies
i view bitcoin as athiest. you believe bitcoin is catholic(where the priests get to do things to script-kiddies.) and then you think any announcing the failures of Catholicism must be muslim terrorists and pretend that they must be muslim and they must hate bitcoin if they are not catholic god adoring

reality is bitcoin is athiest. but you idiots want to play pigeon hole games to make core look like gods and anyone not in your religious sect like the devil

you do not beleive in independant code review, nor scrutiny. you believe in 'trust in god' and not question their scriptures, motives, messages

funny part is, its actually your mentor that loves and adores other networks.. HIS post history proves it
your mentor(doomad) is the one that doesnt want anyone but core gods to change the religious roadmap practices of bitcoin. instead he promotes anyone wanting to fix issues with bitcoin should go start another religion(fork) elsewhere and see who follows.. rather than actually deal with the issues of the gods you idolise

[darkangel11]

also. devs are not immortal gods that require churches that need donations/bribes

So what is it? Is a donation the same as bribe?
~99% of streamers take donations.
~99% of bitcoin youtubers take donations
You can donate to your favourite party. Ukrainiane, Israel and Palestine accept donations.
If you want to take a side in every conflict, you can find a way to donate. I see no problem here.
Since you don't like what the devs are doing I assume you wouldn't donate and that's your right and your vote.

devs can be replaced by better people

Who is going to do that? Who is going to decide who better person is. Let's imagine for a second that you're a dev and someone comes in saying you should be kicked out because "he's a better person."
To be honest I'm OK with their work so far. We had some disagreements when it comes to block size and ordinals, but they managed to somehow keep bitcoin going for all these years.

[franky1]

also. devs are not immortal gods that require churches that need donations/bribes

So what is it? Is a donation the same as bribe?

if money comes with conditions its a bribe

devs can be replaced by better people

Who is going to do that? Who is going to decide who better person is. Let's imagine for a second that you're a dev and someone comes in saying you should be kicked out because "he's a better person."
To be honest I'm OK with their work so far. We had some disagreements when it comes to block size and ordinals, but they managed to somehow keep bitcoin going for all these years.

devs are not immortal gods.. humans get old, they retire.. they wont be around forever.. nature itself will replace devs... sorry to inform you of this..

anyway your premiss sounds closed door minded

currently yes bitcoins sole reference github (called core purposefully) is a hierarchy with moderation where the core devs decide who joins them or bans those they dont like..

but widen your mind..
open up to an existence of bitcoin where independent review exists, multiple brand nodes exist openly
 where people can code things openly and have it reviewed and actually show and explain the real benefits the code can provide the network*.

whether it be on a more open gated core github. or other brands operating on the network* offering proposals for the network*... imagine it, a decentralised network without it feeling like core own and control the code and control who gets to be a bitcoin protocol editor

*without army of religious zeolets screaming to keep gods in power and saying others should move to altcoins

[Wind_FURY]

FUD by frankandbeans.

You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?

no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what you recite

OK, pardon me, frankandbeans. You and Jonald_Fyookball "merely" wanted Bitcoin to hard fork to bigger blocks - Bitcoin XT/Bitcoin Classic, and supported the people - Marc Andresen/Mike Hearn - who conspired together and "free" Bitcoin from the "evil" Core Developers, no?

but your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers

you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad

Did two of "those people" the people who gave you two negative trust-ratings?

[franky1]

FUD by frankandbeans.

You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?

no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what you recite

OK, pardon me, frankandbeans. You and Jonald_Fyookball "merely" wanted Bitcoin to hard fork to bigger blocks - Bitcoin XT/Bitcoin Classic, and supported the people - Marc Andresen/Mike Hearn - who conspired together and "free" Bitcoin from the "evil" Core Developers, no?

your mindset was/is that any proposal back then, not promoted/envisioned by core should be split off to a altcoin.. when those proposals were suppose to be upgrades for the bitcoin network which should have been an open choice that only activate if consensus was reached. thus no threat... your forum-daddy mentor seen it as a threat to core, so a threat to bitcoin so REKT it into becoming a move to altcoin..
and now you just repeat his thoughts like a blind sheep on a rope following the shepherd.. where you now have the mindset that any proposal not made by core must be an altcoiner

oh and by the way.. you just proved my point. by saying what you just said.. how you are against decentralised proposals outside of core centralised hierarchy. thanks for that. no need for people to read all post history of your posts, you summarised your stance quite nicely in a few sentences

and another by the way. i was not even advocating for XT/classic. i was having my own opinions of a dynamic scaling, and simply not supporting cores path as it had flaws(later revealing themselves in ordinal junk form).. but any idea not core co-ordinated/envisioned idea was bad in your forum-dady's eyes. so your forum daddy pigeon holed me into the same group he was trying to REKT

but your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers

you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad

Did two of "those people" the people who gave you two negative trust-ratings?

no you are learning your scripts directly from doomad.. your too linguistically similar to not be obvious of that

the 2 people you are trying to now pretend are your mentors(core devs) which you are now trying to pick as examples of the trust rating comments
dont consider themselves as your mentors(you just wish they were)

the MODERATORS(CODE DEVS) left the trust rating because they had your cry-baby mentor and his THEN recruits and buddies screaming at them, by played victim, trying to shut me up for trying to get devs to fix the issues that even this year prove my point even back then in 2016-2019 (yep the ordinals spam is the result i was speaking of that core devs and your mentor didnt want fixed)

so when its your same religious cult crying to their gods and the gods then respond defending their followers. its then funny that you then want to think its proof of anything when you, as part of same group use your own cry games to attempt to set a narrative that it proves something, when in fact it was your own group that set the first narrative.. thus making it moot

[DooMAD]

I think this has gone far enough now.  Can we draw a line under this and go back to the actual discussion the topic is about?

FUD by frankandbeans.

You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?

no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what you recite

OK, pardon me, frankandbeans. You and Jonald_Fyookball "merely" wanted Bitcoin to hard fork to bigger blocks - Bitcoin XT/Bitcoin Classic, and supported the people - Marc Andresen/Mike Hearn - who conspired together and "free" Bitcoin from the "evil" Core Developers, no?

but your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers

you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad

Did two of "those people" the people who gave you two negative trust-ratings?

Negative trust aside, what his post history *does* prove, is that he hates backwards-compatible softforks.  And I feel this is enough to make the vast majority of posts he's ever made irrelevant.

For anyone who doesn't know, softforks are the preferred method of deploying updates, because it means you can still use older versions of the software without being forked off the network.  franky1 vehemently believes that every rule change should be a hardfork, despite the fact that very few changes have ever been made that way (it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't even know what a softfork was until SegWit and probably assumed it was a brand new thing Core had just invented).  But softforks have been used in Bitcoin long before franky1 started using it in 2013.  

If Bitcoin only used hardforks for rule changes, it would undeniably be more divisive, less inclusive and lead to more splits and forkcoins (and replay attacks, where users could lose funds).  That's an unavoidable consequence of using hardforks exclusively, which is a concept anyone who understands the mechanics of this stuff can grasp.  But franky1 will continue to lie about that, because he's a disgusting piece of shit who despises freedom.  

And even if Bitcoin using exclusively hardforks wasn't a terrible idea (and I can't stress strongly enough how bad an idea it is), he can't actually do anything about it anyway.  For this reason alone, franky1 can never "win".  No one can prevent people from writing backwards-compatible software.  No one can stop anyone else from running-backwards compatible software.  It simply isn't possible.  So merely reading his incessant, gutless, pathetic, crybaby screeching about it is a complete waste of everyone's time.  He might as well unavailingly cry about how water is wet and he thinks it shouldn't be.  Since he's never going to successfully change anything in Bitcoin, he's not a threat.  I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding directly to franky1.  His entire existence and everything he has ever posted on this board is ineffectual.  It carries no consequence or impact.  Bitcoin would be exactly the same as it is now if he had never existed.  He impacts nothing.  He already lost the argument before he tried to make it, because what he wants is impossible.  

It would also be nice if I didn't have to see his posts when people quote him.  

There's no point arguing with him, as it just gives him another reason to post more lies and make-believe gibberish.  He'll always insist on having the last word.  All he does is derail topics (notice how we're meant to be talking about funding of development and now we aren't?).  Just add him to your 'ignore' list.  Note, however, that if you spot another forum user buying into his delusions and quoting him, by all means have a discussion with that user.  They'll be reasonable and will be happy to engage in a rational conversation.  And they'll actually learn something.  Outcomes you'll never get with batshitinsane1.  Engaging with lunatics isn't a fruitful endeavour.  It's problematic to convince them why they're wrong because they can't see reality for what it is.  If he can't be saved, just focus on saving the ones who believe his lies.


So, if we could now get back on topic and go back to discussing funding for development, that would be great.  I'd also strongly recommend everyone adds franky1 to their ignore list so he can't keep derailing threads, lying to newbies. and generally being an egregious waste of oxygen.


//EDIT:  And I know he's going to reply to this, saying how bad a person I am, but I don't care.  He can attack me all he likes.  Makes no difference.  I won't be responding to him anymore.

[franky1]

firstly i have been the one pointing out actual examples of core dev funding.. then the religious cult came in to defend the gods

core were funded to soften the network security, beginning with the blockstream funding deals of segwits "backward compatibility"

softforks via backward compatibility allow changes without nodes needing to upgrade to understand new features.. correct
but listen to those words.. upgrades without nodes being ready to understand the new stuff..
.. thats a security risk

if things can be changed without a network vote to activate the change, anything can be slipped in, including exploits
if things can be slipped in without network readiness to activate a new feature means majority are not validating the new stuff, which is bad  security nd goes against the point of full nodes, decentralised network and independent review/validation

by going back to hard consensus does not cause split to the fear height doomad implies.. instead it simply means a new feature does not activate until network majority readiness, thus no change, no split. unless a controversial mandatory fork is devised

yes it hardened consensus means core cant slide anything they like in at a whim unchallenged, but instead means core have to do a better job at offering a feature the majority find useful and dont have exploits, in short it keeps core honourable and keeps core in-line to develop things that benefit the majority. rather then sliding in crap that only benefit their sponsors

the whole point of satoshi's solution to the major generals(byzantine generals) issue was a hard consensus(consent of the masses)
it was a safe guard to stop funky junk getting into the blockchain

doomad and his chums loves soft upgrades because it allows core to change things unchallenged without network readiness, without a network majority vote, because in their eyes core gods are bitcoin and no one else should challenge it, nor make request of the overlords, nor oppose them even when they create exploits

funny part is i was making fun out of the core devs by calling them out on all the broken promises and exploits
first butting of heads was when i called them out of their changes from 2016 which i highlight here.. (and 8 years later look at the ordinals junk)

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..

 we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

[Agbamoni]

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.

If Bitcoin core development is the government priorities it should cause concern of course to crypto enthusiasm. I had the believe that anything in the world can be manipulated until bitcoin came into existence and gave me a reason for doubt. Yet, the strive to remove decentralization for bitcoin entirely never sees to end. It all started when the rich tend to put so much money into bitcoin in order to manipulate the sea so that it sails towards their direction. Now the banks which has central authority has added more to these issues. My greatest happiness is that they cannot manipulate the total supply, the price directly and the anonymous nature so bitcoin remains an asset that is uncontrollable.

[Lambugini]

It's not okey for banks to fund Bitcoin core development. I think if they do, Bitcoin price will go more higher because if banks should be allowed to do that, we should know that they doing that with the intention of coming to make profit. Banks as we all know can never involved in any business that they can't make profit. Look at the price of one Bitcoin now then check when banks will come to play in funding Bitcoin core development, that means the price of one Bitcoin will be ×2 to it price now. Apart from that some of our banks today are very poor when it comes to providing service or network system. Please banks should be left outside of this. Is okay the way it is now.

[we-btc]

It's not okey for banks to fund Bitcoin core development. I think if they do, Bitcoin price will go more higher because if banks should be allowed to do that, we should know that they doing that with the intention of coming to make profit. Banks as we all know can never involved in any business that they can't make profit. Look at the price of one Bitcoin now then check when banks will come to play in funding Bitcoin core development, that means the price of one Bitcoin will be ×2 to it price now. Apart from that some of our banks today are very poor when it comes to providing service or network system. Please banks should be left outside of this. Is okay the way it is now.

Banks are currently funding both Bitcoin Core and many other projects directly related to Bitcoin's implementation.

These developers are defending themselves and the practice.

Read the two articles in the post.

[Abiky]

If Bitcoin core development is the government priorities it should cause concern of course to crypto enthusiasm. I had the believe that anything in the world can be manipulated until bitcoin came into existence and gave me a reason for doubt. Yet, the strive to remove decentralization for bitcoin entirely never sees to end. It all started when the rich tend to put so much money into bitcoin in order to manipulate the sea so that it sails towards their direction. Now the banks which has central authority has added more to these issues. My greatest happiness is that they cannot manipulate the total supply, the price directly and the anonymous nature so bitcoin remains an asset that is uncontrollable.

Of course. Bitcoin's supply can't be manipulated by anyone. Of course, this would be subject to the network's consensus mechanism. But what if the "Elite" manages to acquire most of the network's hashrate? Then, it will be possible to change the Blockchain's rules with ease.

At this point, I believe it's impossible to do such a thing. Especially when getting ahold of 51% of the network's hashrate will require a hefty sum of money. The cost will be greater than the benefit. Therefore, banks funding Bitcoin Core won't have any negative impact over the cryptocurrency's principles in the long run. It will remain decentralized, immutable, and censorship-resistant as usual. Considering that Bitcoin is the future of money, there's a possibility world governments will adopt it as their own. El Salvador did it, while Argentina is next on the list to do so. Who knows if Fiat becomes history soon?

[DooMAD]

It's not okey for banks to fund Bitcoin core development.

Firstly, the ones in question are ETF companies, not commercial banks.  There's a difference.

Secondly, what do you think anyone can do about it?  No one is in a position to prevent donations.  Nor should there be anyone arbitrarily deciding who can give money to who. 

[franky1]

It's not okey for banks to fund Bitcoin core development.

Firstly, the ones in question are ETF companies, not commercial banks.  There's a difference.

Secondly, what do you think anyone can do about it?  No one is in a position to prevent donations.  Nor should there be anyone arbitrarily deciding who can give money to who.  

bitcoin is its own economic ecosystem, if devs cant work out how to sustain their own life using bitcoin, with bitcoin.. thats on them
when it comes to "following the money" of devs, yes we should scrutinise the developers governing the network. we should not be blind to it (unlike what doomads cult wants) we should scrutinise and review them and look at their intentions for the network and what is actually controlling the decisions of the networks direction (unlike what doomads cult want)

funny side note: doomad and i agree on scrutinising CSW sponsorships/money influence of a crapcoin.. shame he doesnt want the same background checks of bitcoin governance

doomad wanting the core devs to be not independently reviewed via outsiders, nor scrutinised and nor talked about when they make moves that dont benefit bitcoiners but do benefit fiat loving people trying to scam and defraud users via recruiting people to other networks for the purpose of getting ROI for the sponsors of the devs.. well thats on doomad and his cult of other network adorers that some core devs think the agenda of bitcoin should move over to

analogy of US government
doomad is the guy that wants trump to run the US and not want anyone to ever suggest having elections after he gets into power, and then suggest no one should ever question his decisions.. thats tyranny
doomad doesnt want the US run by multiple states where different political parties all run within the government with elections that change to over time, he doesnt want consent of the masses, he doesnt want scrutiny, transparency
doomads view of open source is to publish Trump laws for all to see, but doesnt like outside input of draft/pre-law discussion that could veto a Trump law made by trump and his family. but any law made by other states or other candidates should be told to move to mexico or canada and try out their pledges there
(to doomads usual responses about me using american terminologies instead of british(as his way of evading the point): yes im british but majority or readers of this forum understand the american political/economic system more than the british system hence using american analogies make more sense)

to put it in british terms. doomad would love it if britain remained in the david cameron tory era and had no elections after that, tory forever and never scrutinised