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

[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

[1714605265]

1714605265

[1714605265]

1714605265

[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