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

[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

[1714593346]

1714593346

[1714593346]

1714593346

[1714593346]

1714593346

[1714593346]

1714593346

[1714593346]

1714593346

[1714593346]

1714593346

[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?