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

[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". 

[1714246852]

1714246852

[1714246852]

1714246852

[1714246852]

1714246852

[1714246852]

1714246852

[1714246852]

1714246852

[1714246852]

1714246852

[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.