pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 16h \ parent \ on: A perspective on bitcoin governance bitcoin
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?
write
preview
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheCharlatan 16h
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
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 16h
He look we found the CEO of Bitcoin
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheCharlatan 16h
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