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

[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!

[1714231061]

1714231061

[1714231061]

1714231061

[1714231061]

1714231061

[1714231061]

1714231061

[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.