pull down to refresh
234 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 24 Sep \ on: A perspective on bitcoin governance bitcoin
The biggest issue today is that users aren't choosing, the number of users who trust themselves to "choose" are few, most are deferential to people they perceive as knowing more than them. This is natural, its an instinct that makes the division of labor innate.
This human nature though leaves a vulnerability that's exploited time and again throughout history, symbols of authority, institutions, will be usurped.
This is Bitcoin Core today, where salaried developers anointed by an opaque cabal of NGO's have created a political battlefield over the default behaviors of the many, having only been able to do so based upon a legacy they themselves had no hand in building.
Whether you're an ossifist or an expressionist, this symbol of authority works against your interests and shouldn't be acceptable to you. Archiving Core is one thing every Bitcoiner should agree upon. #966918
Good discussion on this came up again yesterday: #1232615
having only been able to do so based upon a legacy they themselves had no hand in building.
Is this is a stab at "the new gen" of devs? Many developers from prior eras remain, are among the most actice contributors and shaped much of the debate. Devs by and large are not annointed by NGOs, they show up, do some work, then apply for grant funding. Just as they have the past decade.
reply
Many developers from prior eras remain, are among the most actice contributors and shaped much of the debate.
If they moved work to a new repo, users would follow them based on their track record. Sounds fair.
Devs by and large are not annointed by NGOs, they show up, do some work, then apply for grant funding.
You only know what is for public consumption.
Would these grants be applicable if they worked on their own fork/repo?
reply
Some of the grant orgs are working on their own implementation or funding other implementations already. E.g. vinteum funds floresta, 2140 is writing their own rust swiftsync client with their own p2p stack, and there are others like opensats who publicly called for people to apply for grants to help develop knots.
You only know what is for public consumption.
I have intimate knowledge of the decisions they make and regulalry communicate with their respective teams.
reply
He look we found the CEO of Bitcoin
reply
Heh, granted it sounds snarky, but I do have a decent inside look at these orgs. Obviously there is bias, e.g. chaincode are unlikely to fund an alternative client, and there's probably a bit of not invented here syndrome with each of them
reply
reply
Just an alt-repo doesn't change the auto-download behavior of people for whom Core is authoritative. The point of archiving the current Core repo would be forcing users to choose a repo, not just default to one.
It may well result in the same exact people doing the same things with the same mindshare just in a different repo, but the shakeup would make opting into that explicit, and the new repo would have to earn any perceived legitimacy.
reply
I agree with the points. It would be helpful. However, it is a move that needs to come from the current maintainers.
Ultimately, being a free user also means that you have control over auto-download behaviors and opt-out of implementations that do not represent your values.
reply
it is a move that needs to come from the current maintainers
Indeed, they will not simply relinquish their fortification just because it is good for Bitcoin. It must be a "bi-partisan" pressure campaign by everyone with some agency left, as something everyone should be able to rally around it would serve as exposure even if it were to fail.
reply