The Problem of Centralized Develpoment ("core devs") in Bitcoin.

[BittBurger]

In a typical product development cycle, there are different groups:

1)  Sales team interacts with the customers who actually *USE* the product.
2)  Sales team communicates those *NEEDS* to an internal product development team.
3)  Product Development team

  a)  Creates specifications.  
  b)  Decides on timelines.  
  c)  Makes all the decisions for how the product will look, act, and evolve over time.
 
4)  Specifications are handed to Project Manager.
5)  Project Manager ensures that Dev, Design, and Test execute on the project plan.

----------------
There is a reason its done this way.

"Core Devs" are not supposed to be making product development decisions. Developers do not have sufficient information, education, or interaction with the end user to have a clue how the product is supposed to work.  

The people out in the field are the only ones interacting with the customer.  We are the customers.  The man in a grass hut in Kenya is the customer.  The Filipino expat in San Diego sending money home every week to his family is the customer.  The entrepreneur wanting to innovate, is the customer.  These are the people who express their needs.

The developers themselves have *no* information about this group.
The developers themselves have *no* training in finance.
The developers themselves have *no* ability to make decisions on priorities, enhancements, or features for the product.

Gavin has stated numerous times that there is endless disagreement among the core devs.  On features.  Enhancements.  Modifications.  etc.  That they are in a "lock" of disagreement much of the time, and making little to no progress forward.  Here you have a bunch of people who are supposed to be coders.   They are cryptographers.  They are not Finance experts.  These guys should be focusing on executing what the customer (the world) needs Bitcoin to do.  

They should not be "making decisions" about how the product is going to work, function, or grow.  
They should not be setting the timelines.  
They should not be talking amongst themselves about what gets done, or why.

Gavin repeatedly makes mention of the difficulty in obtaining "consensus".   Well this begs the question.  Consensus among who?  Bitcoin is supposed to be a fully decentralized system.  Yet there are a "core group" of completely unqualified Developers making decisions on a new tool that may power world finance.   This seems absolutely insane to me.  To make matters worse - they can't reach consensus on most things.  So not only are they unqualified, and playing roles they should never play, but they're unable to agree on much of anything and move the protocol forward.  

Consensus should be from the community.

There should be a community-wide (world wide) voting mechanism whereby everyone involved in bitcoin has a vote.  A say, in what happens next with the protocol:

The community should decide when something gets added to the Protocol.
The community should decide what the priorities are.
The community should decide what changes are needed, and their severity.

Consensus should NOT be a group of "core devs" who make all the decisions.  Everyone in Bitcoin from the teenager with 0.005 BTC in his wallet, to Roger Ver .... should have an equal vote on where this protocol goes over the next 5 years.  

Obviously lay people don't know technical limitations, and may make unfeasible requests.  But this is why you have a process for product development.  Developers have *no power* over what is decided, aside from conveying what is technologically possible, impossible, risky, or unfeasible.  That is their role.  Nothing more.

Thoughts?

[2112]

Thoughts?

Super-naive corporatism.

It isn't about "votes".

If you want Bitcoin to resemble corporation (or a cooperative) you need to find a way to reproduce the cash flow of the corporation (or a cooperative), e.g. miners pay the salary of the developers.

Your writeup was really naive, you wouldn't get a passing grade in any decent school.

[odolvlobo]

There is no voting. When somebody creates a feature, people may adopt it. If enough people adopt it, then everyone will adopt it. Currently, the core devs (and especially the Bitcoin Foundation) have a lot of influence over what people choose to adopt, but that will change over time (hopefully).

[hasherr]

If gavin fcuks up, noone will adapt new version of protocol and bitcoin evolution will halt, for some time. Network will still work, no reasons it shouldnt.  Then someone/someones will step forward and replace him and so on.

Btw i dont agree on making core devs just a "code whores". Nobody understand bitcoin protocol/tech as good as those nerdy bastards. Business ppl dont know sh1t, all they will do is force devs to bloat protocol with crap. Public demands niki minaj lyrics in blockchain - lets do it. Business ppl would allow it, core devs, never. Software development biz is moving away from shis kind of mindset, giving more and more power to ppl who actually writes software.

[inBitweTrust]

The developers themselves have *no* information about this group.
The developers themselves have *no* training in finance.
The developers themselves have *no* ability to make decisions on priorities, enhancements, or features for the product.

Gavin has stated numerous times that there is endless disagreement among the core devs.  On features.  Enhancements.  Modifications.  etc.  That they are in a "lock" of disagreement much of the time, and making little to no progress forward.  Here you have a bunch of people who are supposed to be coders.   They are cryptographers.  They are not Finance experts.  These guys should be focusing on executing what the customer (the world) needs Bitcoin to do.  

The developers are users as well and have interests outside of coding and cryptography. Additionally, some of these developers are paid by for profit and non profit companies that have other individuals in sales/finance  who dictate certain features be created.

Users can croudfund new features if they need to or simply develop them themselves. This is what lighthouse is for: https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse

The community should decide when something gets added to the Protocol.
The community should decide what the priorities are.
The community should decide what changes are needed, and their severity.

Consensus should NOT be a group of "core devs" who make all the decisions.  Everyone in Bitcoin from the teenager with 0.005 BTC in his wallet, to Roger Ver .... should have an equal vote on where this protocol goes over the next 5 years.  

Your suggestions seem to be well intentioned but clearly show you are unfamiliar with developing open source software. If you try and mandate developers with majority voting you will simply scare them away and they will just work on other projects. Developers either are being paid to develop features by companies or donate their time because they enjoy supporting the ecosystem. Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion. If you feel strongly about implementing a certain feature than contribute code yourself , request a pull on github, or pay a developer to do so for you. Their are multiple stacks or implementations of bitcoin that interacts with the blockchain as well. You are encouraged to contribute to those if you don't agree with the direction the Bitcoin core developers are taking bitcoin. In fact, many of the Bitcoin core developers would welcome more development in various other implementations or stacks.

[TonyT]

Thoughts?

Well said.  What your detractors are pointing out is that the "stakeholders" (the customers in your example) have no real vote since they are not paying the core devs.  This is true, but also "old school".  Modern corporations in fact adopt your proposal, which is the modern trend, and incorporate 'stakeholders' in varying degrees.  An example is the PR campaign from BP, the oil company, saying to environmental groups "we agree with you on green energy" (mainly to ward off harmful legislation).  More directly, in your example, failure to listen to the "stakeholders" might mean less adoptions from the masses, and Bitcoin may go the way of "Linux" with PC operating systems.  Or, as I think G.A. and some others want (and have hinted) Bitcoin may go 'mainstream' and abandon the anonymity features it has, which will actually make it more suitable for international money transfers (i.e., it will prevent Bitcoin from being banned, and Bitcoin will essentially become a super-cheap, turbo-charged Western Union or improved PayPal, which is not such a bad thing actually).

I've only been here a short time, but already I see the writing on the wall (that if I have time I will explain later) and that is:  BTC is doomed as presently designed (though I am a holder of BTC and hope it goes up in price).

[inBitweTrust]

Well said.  What your detractors are pointing out is that the "stakeholders" (the customers in your example) have no real vote since they are not paying the core devs.  This is true, but also "old school".  Modern corporations in fact adopt your proposal, which is the modern trend, and incorporate 'stakeholders' in varying degrees.  An example is the PR campaign from BP, the oil company, saying to environmental groups "we agree with you on green energy" (mainly to ward off harmful legislation).  More directly, in your example, failure to listen to the "stakeholders" might mean less adoptions from the masses, and Bitcoin may go the way of "Linux" with PC operating systems.  Or, as I think G.A. and some others want (and have hinted) Bitcoin may go 'mainstream' and abandon the anonymity features it has, which will actually make it more suitable for international money transfers (i.e., it will prevent Bitcoin from being banned, and Bitcoin will essentially become a super-cheap, turbo-charged Western Union or improved PayPal, which is not such a bad thing actually).

I've only been here a short time, but already I see the writing on the wall (that if I have time I will explain later) and that is:  BTC is doomed as presently designed (though I am a holder of BTC and hope it goes up in price).

 The only stakeholders with any right to dictate what developers do with their time are ones that have agreements with them such as donors to the Bitcoin Foundation, crowdfunded projects, or employers at a company paying for development work. Otherwise you are simply leaching off of developers efforts and trying to micromanage their time.

Remember you are actively encouraged to develop and test yourself with everyone else and if you have any disagreements you can work on another stack.

Bullying developers to write code based upon the dictates of non-paying(buying bitcoin pays for past dev at the most) users is not the way to accomplish anything for ethical or pragmatic reasons.

[TonyT]

  Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion

This is a variant of the "follow the money" argument.  You are saying if you want a feature, either code it or pay somebody to code it.  Very true, but it's also not the way modern corporations grow, see my comment upstream.  

case in point:  Swiss banks prided themselves on secrecy, and did their own thing for decades.  World opinion thought otherwise of Swiss banking secrecy, and majority opinion (of the kind you seem to disparage) voted Swiss banking secrecy out of existence.  Even the Swiss parliament bowed to world opinion (chiefly the EU and USA).   Another more familiar example to computer types is the old Linux vs Windows debate.  True, Linux is 'open source' and 'bazaar vs cathedral' models and all that, but absent mobile phones (if you consider that Linux) it still has less than about 2% market share.  The masses (majority opinion) spoke, and the "money" listened or went out of business or stayed obscure.  Don't think for a second the Bitcoin whales that hold significant amounts of BTC don't understand this.  They will sacrifice the beloved 'open source' and 'anonymity' features of BTC if it allows a 10x increase in price, in a heartbeat.

[inBitweTrust]

This is a variant of the "follow the money" argument.  You are saying if you want a feature, either code it or pay somebody to code it.  Very true, but it's also not the way modern corporations grow, see my comment upstream.  

Bitcoin isn't a corporation. Are you suggesting you would prefer it to behave like a corporation?

Another more familiar example to computer types is the old Linux vs Windows debate.  True, Linux is 'open source' and 'bazaar vs cathedral' models and all that, but absent mobile phones (if you consider that Linux) it still has less than about 2% market share.  The masses (majority opinion) spoke, and the "money" listened or went out of business or stayed obscure.  Don't think for a second the Bitcoin whales that hold significant amounts of BTC don't understand this.  They will sacrifice the beloved 'open source' and 'anonymity' features of BTC if it allows a 10x increase in price, in a heartbeat.

Do you even realize how wrong this statement is? Besides desktops, linux dominates practically every other sector from servers, to research, to tablets, to embedded devices, to cell phones. Most computers in the world depend upon open source software.

You are free to create another bitcoin implementation that interacts with the blockchain freely where non-paying users can demand features from developers. How will these developers be paid and what is going to motivate them?

[2double0]

There is no voting. When somebody creates a feature, people may adopt it. If enough people adopt it, then everyone will adopt it. Currently, the core devs (and especially the Bitcoin Foundation) have a lot of influence over what people choose to adopt, but that will change over time (hopefully).

Hopefully the part of the BF having an influence changes real soon. I dont trust that site/organisation, if you can even call them that.

[inBitweTrust]

Hopefully the part of the BF having an influence changes real soon. I dont trust that site/organisation, if you can even call them that.

Check for yourself; most developers don't work for and are not associated with the Bitcoin foundation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message to anyone wanting to have non-paying users force developers to code certain features:

Open source isn't about democracy, but more closely related to a form of anarchistic meritocracy.

 I would suggest you migrate over to a different currency which matches your democratic ideals like perhaps a DPoS variation or a Fiat PoS variation where a framework is created where users can vote upon changes in the governing protocol rather than an open and free ecosystem where anyone can contribute and participate voluntarily without the majority forcing mandates upon minorities.

[QuestionAuthority]

Thoughts?

Super-naive corporatism.

It isn't about "votes".

If you want Bitcoin to resemble corporation (or a cooperative) you need to find a way to reproduce the cash flow of the corporation (or a cooperative), e.g. miners pay the salary of the developers.

Your writeup was really naive, you wouldn't get a passing grade in any decent school.

Wow, that's pretty harsh! So you love the way it works now? If not what's your idea?

[inBitweTrust]

Wow, that's pretty harsh! So you love the way it works now? If not what's your idea?

Yes, I do like how open software in general is developed. You are certainly free to create an alternative implementation or stack which works with the blockchain where non-paying users can demand features from developers. Why don't you do this, or do you have another proposal?

[Walter Rothbard]

Thoughts?

This is not how open source development works.

If you don't like version N+1 of the software, just stick with version N.  You are welcome to pay someone to make an N+1' version that goes off in a different direction if you like.

[Walter Rothbard]

case in point:  Swiss banks prided themselves on secrecy, and did their own thing for decades.  World opinion thought otherwise of Swiss banking secrecy, and majority opinion (of the kind you seem to disparage) voted Swiss banking secrecy out of existence.  Even the Swiss parliament bowed to world opinion (chiefly the EU and USA).

Right; see what a mistake that was?

[2112]

Wow, that's pretty harsh! So you love the way it works now? If not what's your idea?

Love? No. But I do recognize that Bitcoin has originated somewhere near the people with the anarchist worldview. Out of all anarcho-something groups I think anarcho-syndicalism is the most promising way forward while staying near the roots.

[QuestionAuthority]

Wow, that's pretty harsh! So you love the way it works now? If not what's your idea?

Yes, I do like how open software in general is developed. You are certainly free to create an alternative implementation or stack which works with the blockchain where non-paying users can demand features from developers. Why don't you do this, or do you have another proposal?

I wasn't actually talking to you. You were able to make your case without being a stiff prick.

[inBitweTrust]

I wasn't actually talking to you. You were able to make your case without being a stiff prick.

I still love you in spite of my stiff prick

I was really just looking for some further clarification on what you prefer changed.

What do you think happens to developers who are forced to work on features they don't agree with and are not being paid to do so?

What should happen to them?

[QuestionAuthority]

I wasn't actually talking to you. You were able to make your case without being a stiff prick.

I still love you despite my stiff prick

LOL

I just hate how conversations here have to degenerate to name calling. I've even been guilty of it myself (but you really need to crank me up first). I don't agree with a voting system and much prefer the way the Linux foundation runs it with inputs from all corners of the globe being welcome. I don't however believe that only one developer deserves to get paid. Maybe they could pay a different developer every year and spread it around a little.

[inBitweTrust]

LOL

I just hate how conversations here have to degenerate to name calling. I've even been guilty of it myself (but you really need to crank me up first). I don't agree with a voting system and much prefer the way the Linux foundation runs it with inputs from all corners of the globe being welcome. I don't however believe that only one developer deserves to get paid. Maybe they could pay a different developer every year and spread it around a little.

Yes, I agree.

 I think Lighthouse will solve this as it will allow a majority of users to "vote" with a few dollars just like how the dark wallet with Indiegogo was created on the libbitcoin/sx implementation.