pull down to refresh

Taking it further, is this also true for Bitcoin development?
I suspect consensus muddies this up. Popular and innovative have to coincide more than in science or art, else the innovation dies in obscurity, because it requires a threshold of popularity with the right people and then economic nodes. In a field like science or art, a niche can have patrons.
I suspect this is also why bitcoin is plagued by influencers more than other fields. We need them to "just repeat variations on the same five time-tested ideas over and over again" and "exaggerate or embellish a bit" and make the right things popular (accepting most of them, in the best case, tastefully sellout), because the hurdle of popularity is so high that innovators can't reach popularity on their own.1

Footnotes

  1. This is one reason to be sympathetic of sidechains or more expressive scripting - we might rid ourselves of these popularity middlemen.
this territory is moderated
popularity middlemen
is a really good term. I need to start a list of all these little nuggets people are sharing that I want to think about.
Upon reflection, I'm wondering if my question wasn't naive: what I wanted to ask was "are there bitcoin developers who have strong, interesting ideas for bitcoin, but as they get involved in the process and get recognition for their contributions, slowly merge towards an average?" but it is also true that Bitcoin development has to please its users or they won't use it.
reply
204 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 8h
Oh, bitcoin devs get audience captured too. I often wonder if I am, although I’m more of an app guy I suppose. Maybe we should be using liquid somehow? Maybe we should KYC people? Is my bias away from these things my bias?
reply
whatever bias you have that says stick with sats and don't kyc is the good kind of bias.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 8h
Or perhaps you’re captured by the same audience I am? :)
reply