Is btc cto without dev?

[Waldorf77]

So Satoshi was dev?
Then he abonded the project and then cto?
And whos the cto leader ? Grayscale? Blackrock? Micheal saylor ?
And btc limited supply is perfect weapon against jeeters that's why they sell low and buy back later.
In this case the biggest btc whales are more interested about fud then fomo becouse btc does not need any advertisement the limited supply will keep price up.
At some point the they want to take out profit the whales of btc ....only thing is that we don't know wich Marketcap the blackrock is targeting to make big cash out.
One thing for sure big sell coming for btc If jeeters will come on the market jeeters are humans who always should buy from the top prices.

[mocacinno]

Bitcoin isn't a company, it doesn't have a ceo or a cto.... It's an open source project. Sure, satoshi was the first dev but he has gone away. Nowadays, other devs keep on developing the code, but there is no cto (certainly not a company like grayscale or blackrock). It's a different mindset than closed source (for profit) company's, you can't think in terms of cto, cfo's, ceo's, departments,...

[franky1]

there certainly is centralised control

the main funding went to blockstream(brand owner of core) which the split into 3 companies which are blockstream, brink, chaincodelabs
whom are the employers of the main dozen devs whom have ultimate control of the protocol changes (are the github maintainers of core.)

you will see over history, any other wallet brand that wants to set proposals for the protocol level changes got killed off where only core has become the reference client and as said you can find the maintainers of core.

those maintainers are paid by the 3 main companies that received HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to sponsor certain code changes that other corporations wanted but have not helped the general publics access to bitcoin transacting

if you then look at the main moderators that control whats in the release candidate of protocol aspects you will see the lineage that went from satoshi, to gavin andresen to Wladimir van der Laan.. however during the Wlad tenure it was actually gmaxwell(after gavin) and achowe(after gmaxwell) that took the real CTO helm of controlling the project at the higher officer level of what went into core and also who gets to discuss protocol stuff. and Wladimir van der Laan was just a tick box exercise of a last person who signed off on changes after the fact

achowe this year although going through some mental and identity crisis, he is still the one organising what priorities the core devs should concentrate on so he is ultimately this years CTO

..
the whole buzzword of "open source" is not like an open office where any editor can write an artical in a newspaper to be published.. the whole "open source" means the editors are paid and controlled by a small group and choose who to let in the office, mainly only letting in translaters and GUI graphic designers, but still having a mostly closed door editor office holding control of the actual technical content. whilst then after its wrote,  showing the open pages of the newspaper to the public.
in short their version of open source is they show the content to the public. not let the public truly contribute

achowe not only controls the decisions of code priority, but also moderates who gets to help, and also moderates who gets to discuss bitcoin issues//fixes on different platforms. so yes achowe is basically the CTO after gmaxwell took a step back(semi retire) to collect QSL cards from his radio ham hobby

the hierarchy/monarchy and existence of core(centralisation is literally their name) needs to change, we need to become more decentralised where many brands can offer protocol changes and the community vote on best option, without any aggressive practices done by some centralised hierarchy group

i am a bitcoin maximalist and want the best for bitcoin, but i am a realist and speak frank about issues at risk, such as the centralisation risk which we should not pretend does not exist to stay in a day dream of "decentralisation" buzzwords that dont match reality

[davis196]

So Satoshi was dev?
Then he abonded the project and then cto?
And whos the cto leader ? Grayscale? Blackrock? Micheal saylor ?
And btc limited supply is perfect weapon against jeeters that's why they sell low and buy back later.
In this case the biggest btc whales are more interested about fud then fomo becouse btc does not need any advertisement the limited supply will keep price up.
At some point the they want to take out profit the whales of btc ....only thing is that we don't know wich Marketcap the blackrock is targeting to make big cash out.
One thing for sure big sell coming for btc If jeeters will come on the market jeeters are humans who always should buy from the top prices.

1.After spamming the Economics forum for months, you have decided to come to the Bitcoin Discussion forum. Why?
2.I think that the BTC whales(and almost all investors/traders) are in interested in both FUD and FOMO phases, because both phases present and opportunity to make big profits.
3.OK, I get your point of view. Bitcoin is a pump and dump scheme and the big whales are here to buy low and sell high. This idea has been repeated multiple times on the forum. Every speculative asset is basically a pump and dump scheme. Change my mind.
4.BTC having a limited supply isn't "a perfect weapon". Where there aren't any altcoins with limited supply that are more popular than BTC?

[pooya87]

you will see over history, any other wallet brand that wants to set proposals for the protocol level changes got killed off where only core has become the reference client and as said you can find the maintainers of core.

You mean "brands" like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Cash, etc. that wanted to introduce vulnerabilities into the protocol such as letting miners change the block size anytime they wanted to any value they liked? They got shut down for good reasons.

Nobody likes centralization creeping in through these companies but lets not mix things together...

[betswift]

you will see over history, any other wallet brand that wants to set proposals for the protocol level changes got killed off where only core has become the reference client and as said you can find the maintainers of core.

You mean "brands" like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Cash, etc. that wanted to introduce vulnerabilities into the protocol such as letting miners change the block size anytime they wanted to any value they liked? They got shut down for good reasons.

Nobody likes centralization creeping in through these companies but lets not mix things together...

The whole post that was previously put there is very interesting, but the core idea is to decentralize changes to the protocol, it's the main idea I've got. I just didn't know so much about people that were mentioned there by @franky1. I appreciate the leads given!

[NotATether]

there certainly is centralised control

the main funding went to blockstream(brand owner of core) which the split into 3 companies which are blockstream, brink, chaincodelabs
whom are the employers of the main dozen devs whom have ultimate control of the protocol changes (are the github maintainers of core.)

you will see over history, any other wallet brand that wants to set proposals for the protocol level changes got killed off where only core has become the reference client and as said you can find the maintainers of core.

those maintainers are paid by the 3 main companies that received HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to sponsor certain code changes that other corporations wanted but have not helped the general publics access to bitcoin transacting

To be clear, you are talking about the blockstream family of companies being the ones receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from other (presumably crypto) companies, right?

Because the alternative interpretation would be the developers themselves receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, and you know, the only way that would've made sense is if this figure was in BTC.

[franky1]

Because the alternative interpretation would be the developers themselves receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, and you know, the only way that would've made sense is if this figure was in BTC.

devs dont get paid from block rewards, bitcoin is not some altcoin that has some X% of blockrewards that go to devs.. so why would you think devs only got paid in btc.. you really need to look into the accounts, sponsorships, grants, donations that the employees of the companies i mentioned get. employees who are the ones with the github privileges of the sole reference client

this is just one of many articles that show the 'power'(control) of andrew chow when questioned about his managerial decisions of (his words) 'place of work' which is github(he treats as a business, not a open door volunteer project)
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/01/11/steward-of-bitcoin-software-explains-why-she-nixed-an-acrimonious-code-debate/

The PR was additionally locked since all it was doing was generating noise. Bitcoin Core uses GitHub for code collaboration and it is essentially the developers' place of work. When someone makes a bold claim on twitter that angers people, and then encourages them to leave comments on GitHub, they end up disrupting the developers. These comments often contain accusations of bad faith, poorly informed statements about the code, and demands for the developers to make major changes, which drag the developers into arguments in order to defend themselves and correct misconceptions
...
The decision to close it at that time was made independently by myself.

in short core is their business and no one should ask/demand a dev to do something outside of what the devs are sponsored to do by their masters, anything outside of their job asked by the community should be ignored and treated as noise and be shutdown and treat proposals outside the core roadmap as poorly informed misconceptions and distractions

and yes andrew chow does also manage the roadmap of core future direction, and githubs moderation and many platforms technical discussion.. basically filtering out any proposals on any platform that dont fit the core roadmap

[franky1]

If we talk about the Bitcoin project then yes it does not have a specific CTO, as it is an open source project managed by volunteer developers all over the world.  Satoshi Nakamoto developed the initial idea, but it is the Bitcoin Core developers who make the technical decisions on this project.

hang around a little longer and learn more about bitcoin beyond the promoted buzzwords, you will get your mind blown at how deep things go. bitcoin is more then just a "voluntary project" its a whole economy. and yes there is a hierarchy of "power" which we need to defend against if we want to keep bitcoin decentralised, not just let the power players strengthen their grip and just turn bitcoin into another governed currency like fiat

[adaseb]

At the beginning there had to be a main developer because there was bugs and kinks which needed to be worked out. However as it gained popularity and it became more stable and without bugs, Satoshi decided to leave it in the hands of the open source community.

Its basically a currency by the people for the people. And this is a good thing. Its one of the reasons why many bitcoin people didnt like ethereum because they found that the devs just had way too much control and found it risky. Hence why bitcoin is special in this regard.

[Waldorf77]

Bitcoin isn't a company, it doesn't have a ceo or a cto.... It's an open source project. Sure, satoshi was the first dev but he has gone away. Nowadays, other devs keep on developing the code, but there is no cto (certainly not a company like grayscale or blackrock). It's a different mindset than closed source (for profit) company's, you can't think in terms of cto, cfo's, ceo's, departments,...

Sure but would be nice to know the service you use whos the creator or owner ceo

[franky1]

Big players like Grayscale or BlackRock don’t control Bitcoin. Whales might sell high and buy back low, but Bitcoin's limited supply drives its value.

grayscale(parent: dcg) did fund and finance the sponsorship of certain features of bitcoin via paying devs
river financial also funds and finances the sponsorship of devs that idolise the subnetwork directions of the bitcoin core roadmap
blackrock sponsors devs too, and has fingers in exchanges(economic nodes) and mining pools which help decide on which blocks are created and followed based on code changes allowed by core

[mocacinno]

Bitcoin isn't a company, it doesn't have a ceo or a cto.... It's an open source project. Sure, satoshi was the first dev but he has gone away. Nowadays, other devs keep on developing the code, but there is no cto (certainly not a company like grayscale or blackrock). It's a different mindset than closed source (for profit) company's, you can't think in terms of cto, cfo's, ceo's, departments,...

Sure but would be nice to know the service you use whos the creator or owner ceo

I use tons of open source tools that don't have a ceo, cfo, cto, company address, liability,....

In this case, it's true the person who wrote the first versions is gone (but the persons that wrote everyting the last several years are not), but still, even if satoshi left the scene, it's open source: the sourcecode is right there, you can see the repo, find out who made which commits, which pull requests, who made a BIP,... etc,etc,... You can verify every line of code if you wanted to, and if you didn't agree with the code you're free to either not use bitcoin or to create a fork and see if part of the community agrees with you.

It is true that the people writing bitcoin can be employed by a company, and it's possible that this company has some kind of influence over the direction bitcoin takes, that still does not make them the owner of bitcoin, nor it's ceo, nor do they assume liability. It's an open source project, anybody can write a bip, fork, make a pull request, write their own implementation,... (granted, if you'd make a pull request, odds of it being merged into main are very small)

[retreat]

Bitcoin is decentralized, it is not a project developed with a business purpose, but it is a project developed with a noble purpose to provide a decentralized transaction system that is free from censorship, secure, and more free to be used by people globally. And if you say that Bitcoin is without developers, you are very wrong, Bitcoin has core developers, but the decisions are based on consensus, where developers will develop, propose improvements, and implement changes, but they cannot directly control Bitcoin because it involves developers, miners, and users. That is very unique and that is what makes Bitcoin have many users.

[seoincorporation]

Bitcoin isn't a company, it doesn't have a ceo or a cto.... It's an open source project. Sure, satoshi was the first dev but he has gone away. Nowadays, other devs keep on developing the code, but there is no cto (certainly not a company like grayscale or blackrock). It's a different mindset than closed source (for profit) company's, you can't think in terms of cto, cfo's, ceo's, departments,...

We all know Satoshi is the CEO and Theymos is the company's Vice president, I would say winklevoss twins are the Chief Financial Officer, and Craig Wright is Human Resources (We all hate that area, lol).

Is fun to think about Bitcoin as a company, but as mocacinno mentioned, it's an open-source project, and we have some examples of open-source projects that have a CEO like Linux with Linus Torvalds. But with bitcoin that's impossible because saint satoshi is gone and no one knows his identity.

[franky1]

In this case, it's true the person who wrote the first versions is gone (but the persons that wrote everyting the last several years are not), but still, even if satoshi left the scene, it's open source: the sourcecode is right there, you can see the repo, find out who made which commits, which pull requests, who made a BIP,... etc,etc,... You can verify every line of code if you wanted to, and if you didn't agree with the code you're free to either not use bitcoin or to create a fork and see if part of the community agrees with you.

and in all of that you said, none of what you said even mentions that a individual can scrutinise, critique, or request a privileged dev to change things for the betterment of the community even if it opposes said privileged devs private agenda.
if you think that consensus and progress of a decentralised system is purely about creating an altcoin and recruiting others to abandon bitcoin to move over to 'new bitcoin' then you have much to learn

too many people think the only option for change outside the centralised management is to make an opposing altcoin and recruit people over to it.. they have totally not learned the whole point of the byzantine generals solution of what made blockchains superior to databases.. by having one centralised brand(core) and its dev privilege hierarchy and management, it has totally avoided actual decentralised usage of the features of the solution to the byzantine generals issue.. and that wont change whilst there are still the monarchy/hierarchy of privileged devs working for the CTO manager (currently achow)

[logfiles]

Pretty sure you brought out your CTO vibes from the Solana meme token charade.
CTO means Consumer Token Offerings. Since when has Bitcoin ever been a token or an offering?

If you are trying to mean Community Take Over, then again Bitcoin has never been abandoned by Developers unlike what you see with those Shitcoins. Its development is open source and anyone can contribute.

[franky1]

CTO means

Chief Technology Officer (sometimes the devs called themself chief science officer, although science was not the appropriate word)

(the lineage of CTO's)
gavin andressen
greg maxwell
samson mow
andrew chow

[SickDayIn]

Like others have mentioned, consider Bitcoin a project not a company. Yes Satoshi created it but there's no "CTO", like other bogus cryptocurrencies have which truly do operate as companies. Regarding your speculation on Blackrock and market share ownership, I think you'll find the majority supply of Bitcoin is owned by individuals not investment funds.

[Yatsan]

So Satoshi was dev?
Then he abonded the project and then cto?
And whos the cto leader ? Grayscale? Blackrock? Micheal saylor ?
And btc limited supply is perfect weapon against jeeters that's why they sell low and buy back later.
In this case the biggest btc whales are more interested about fud then fomo becouse btc does not need any advertisement the limited supply will keep price up.
At some point the they want to take out profit the whales of btc ....only thing is that we don't know wich Marketcap the blackrock is targeting to make big cash out.
One thing for sure big sell coming for btc If jeeters will come on the market jeeters are humans who always should buy from the top prices.

If I remember correctly, Satoshi Nakamoto, the celebrated founder of Bitcoin, started as a developer and over time withdrew from the project by localizing the development strategy before assuming an official position of the CTO and CTO function. It heavily depends on volunteers and fragmented congregations right? Big companies like Grayscale and BlackRock and individuals like Michael Saylor have strong cash connections and market ratio, but they are not raising the Bitcoin. There's a limited supply for Bitcoin, which underlies the very basis for its value. That will serve to create an inflationary effect, which may drive up prices in the long run