pull down to refresh
The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?
Of those that have significantly contributed, they've mostly been around far longer than that.
What are they responsible for in that time from the user’s perspective?
It is very sad to me how the people who have fought tooth and nail to make bitcoin sound money, and who continue to do so, have people like you casually throwing around nonsense.
Your idea of what's going on amongst bitcoin devs is completely at odds with reality. That's what happens when you make pronouncements based something you read on social media. And then the devs waste their time refuting people like you one by one instead of actually improving bitcoin.
If you want to know who is attacking bitcoin, it's useful idiots like yourself. You've been successfully weaponised into an attack against bitcoin devs' reputation.
reply
If you want to know who is attacking bitcoin, it's useful idiots like yourself. You've been successfully weaponised into an attack against bitcoin devs' reputation.
💯
reply
reply
That is a risk factor which can only increase trust and decrease the amount of people verifying the software.
Unless you become a bitcoin dev yourself (i.e. write code, learn cryptography and the nuances of how bitcoin works) then you are trusting the devs. And even then, not everyone has the brain to understand that stuff - it is crazy complex.
So most people have no choice but to trust the communications of the general dev community. They cannot verify things for themselves.
Is this a risk to bitcoin? Yes. The masses can be convinced of some bullshit about bitcoin and people associated with it - just like what happens in politics. The same strategies used to manipulate political opinion can and are being used to manipulate people's view of what's happening with bitcoin.
In bitcoin's case, seems like it only takes one well-known dev to push a load of propaganda to cause a significant portion of bitcoiners to lose the plot.
reply
Unless you become a bitcoin dev yourself (i.e. write code, learn cryptography and the nuances of how bitcoin works) then you are trusting the devs.
Not entirely. There's a public, transparent process and the entirety of that process is what you could trust, instead of a set of people. You can read things and ask questions about what you see, voice concerns. I.e. even if you cannot understand all the code, you can see the discussions about the code. This is how I personally started out learning about Bitcoin, except back in summer 2013 it wasn't as transparent as it is now.
But the problem we have today is that it isn't as transparent now as earlier, say 1, in the final years before/when
laanwj was redistributing leadership either. As painful as that sounds when deep inside we all want to believe in decentralization, I know for a fact that I am not the only person that has interpreted the situation like this. There is a perception of regression, in the form of a moderated forum taking some info off the mailing list, the github org being more heavily moderated since recently and some clearly logged IRC chat communications (allegedly) being done in private offices.[..] a significant portion of bitcoiners to lose the plot.
Even though I agree that a lot of the stuff said is cringe and subjectively I find the narratives out there extremely retarded, there is still an underlying signal that should not be dismissed, imho. If underlying concerns about a reduction in transparency cannot be addressed (and I'm not entirely sure that public opinion is still salvageable) then indeed, everyone has to just trust the devs, and then we're worse off than we are today.
I'd expect that an outcome of "trust the devs" will only increase cults of persona. It will mean more polarization, and more scammers, like the scammer we shall not name that tried to gaslight the world's legal systems - or did we forget about that shit?!?
Footnotes
-
it is really hard to put a finger on when exactly the regression started. Right now I would say that delving partially replacing mailing list was my first frown, but it is very possible that I've forgotten about earlier lesser frowns, or that I at the time didn't frown while I should. All this is subjective, which is why it's so hard to talk about it without emotional barrages happening on the bird app (or even here on SN) ↩
reply
You can read things and ask questions about what you see, voice concerns. I.e. even if you cannot understand all the code, you can see the discussions about the code.
To understand the arguments, you need to understand the full context, tradeoffs, and nuances. I'd say that basically requires you to be a dev.
A layperson trying to understand a technical debate is like them trying to understand a professional chess game. The moves themselves don't and never will capture the full ocean of possibilities underneath.
I've seen many times on software projects where management sides with the dev that most confidently or neatly presents their opinion. Or management think the little knowledge they do have makes their opinion just as valid as the devs and start making technical decisions.
There is no easy answer to this problem on software projects - and with bitcoin it is much much harder.
One of the best tools I've seen to allow management to know who to trust are 360 degree reviews. But those don't exist in open source dev and could be gamed.
But the problem we have today is that it isn't as transparent now as earlier
Still seems pretty transparent to me.
Most people aren't bothering to read that stuff anyway. Even with myself, while I try to verify a few things here and there, there is still a huge amount of stuff I am taking on trust.
reply
To understand the arguments, you need to understand the full context, tradeoffs, and nuances. I'd say that basically requires you to be a dev.
I'm probably underestimating this; I was literate in systems programming when I first ran into Bitcoin and it drew my interest. I do think that the mail list is a better place to start than pull request comments; it's still technical but it's more conceptual than the discussion on the repo.
There is no easy answer to this problem on software projects - and with bitcoin it is much much harder.
Agreed that it is much much harder, but that's a reason to put the bar much much higher, on
bitcoin/bitcoin (or anything else being the defacto reference implementation by choice or otherwise) most of all. And like I said, it sucks to be of this opinion because I actually like a lot of the people that are currently under personal attack.Still seems pretty transparent to me.
For now it's much better than it was when I got here, I agree. It is possible that seeing a larger shift in what I think is the wrong direction is confirmation bias on my part; I'm fallible too. I'm super happy to hear opinions that bring nuance to that, but it does make me wonder: are you not worried at all?
Even with myself, while I try to verify a few things here and there, there is still a huge amount of stuff I am taking on trust.
On trust of what, though? The person that proposed a diff or the process that everything gets reviewed and things get tested/fuzzed/scrutinized, and bad ideas get challenged?
I make a point out of this because I think that the biggest problem I see right now is the complete focus on ad-hominem of people that are frustrated, and nothing about the process; i.e. I saw something that clearly only focuses on names posted here on SN just 2h ago, and yesterday, and the day before that, and also in this thread, even after I link some evidence that would soften the focus on personae, or maybe especially. If I were to be in the mood to be depressed, I'd open nitter.net or amethyst global feed and see it being infinitely worse outside of SN.
reply
are you not worried at all?
I don't see any incentive to hide discussion. Although I think future devs may need to be anonymous for their own safety as the stakes get higher.
As for info for the masses, I think it probably doesn't matter what the masses think on contentious issues, because they're not stakeholders who have any control over what happens. Even if they can make it seem like they do.
the biggest problem I see right now is the complete focus on ad-hominem of people that are frustrated, and nothing about the process
I think this is where the analogy with politics makes a lot of sense. There is a lot more discussion of Trump's character than there is of his policies.
I'd expect discourse around bitcoin to mirror the quality of political discourse: some pockets of good analysis, but mostly uninformed junk and lies. And maybe that's fine if the real stakeholders can tell the difference.
The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?
No, many from the the 2011-2013 era still remain and are among the most active contributors. glozow is the newest contributor among the maintainers, but the rest have been working on core about a decade plus now and have seen through major changes to core in that time period. There has not been a big generational shift, it is a very gradual process.
reply
reply
reply
I’m asking you specifically about the chain code labs employees.
No you didn't. Read your own comment: #1227740.
They all are paid by the same company, they work from the same office.
Naw bruh. If you would have clicked the link I gave you (I even put it on blame so you could straight move on to the commit authors for each key and not have to lookup pgp keys) and done some research you would have known the % of maintainers that work for chaincode. Takes... 20 minutes if you manually verify everything like a real Chad.
The problem isn't the funding, and you would know that if you would just do your research. Don't take my word for it! Go check it out yourself! Reach your own conclusions! Be a king in the age of retardation!
You have zero concerns about that?
I have serious concerns about the echo chamber I'm perceiving; probably more serious than you can ever imagine. And because of that, and because we know we cannot tell people what to do, I agreed with you above that it would be good to have a third fork. So who are you arguing with?
reply
It was a different thread I specifically referred to the chain code employees.
Chain code seems to be the source pushing this filter drama and the apparent centralization there is a much bigger problem than default mempool policy.
I agree with you that we should have more implementations and luckily it looks like we are moving in that direction as a result of this saga.
Have a good day.
reply
Inscriptions, forcing filter changes and now a 20% rebellion from the repo?