pull down to refresh
I know folks have had this idea over the years. I think Balaji said something like each company will have their own Bitcoin Core developer on salary, which is probably the extreme version.
Blockstream had many open source Bitcoin engineers on staff over the years. But it doesnt seem that the idea has taken off more broadly. Perhaps there is a stigma about private companies funding open source Bitcoin Core developers. Or there is administrative overhead, or reputation risk if they fund the "wrong" one. What do you think?
each company will have their own Bitcoin Core developer on salary,
I do not see that as so extreme. I think is reasonable. The only thing is who will decide what these developers will implement in the Bitcoin code.
don't see it as extreme either.
In fact, if and when Bitcoin gets big, having a dedicated dev deeply involved in Bitcoin will probably become pretty normal for large companies rather than not.
After all, we'd generally find it more acceptable for big companies to direct resources toward common goods — Bitcoin being one — than not to. It's like how we expect them to contribute to the Linux kernel.
If we are talking about Bitcoin Core developers, its hard for me to imagine the idea of Quaker Oats having a Bitcoin Core developer as realistic.
If we are talking about someone on staff having general Bitcoin technical knowledge in a hyperbitcoinized world, sure.
hyperbitcoinized world,
sorry to say it, but that will happen only when people will understand Darth's memes :)
IIRC it was literally every company in the world or some such thing.
I dont think it is realistic.
IMHO every company involved somehow (in this transition period) into Bitcoin should participate at least to a fund for Bitcoin development like OpenSats or whatever.
Is preferable to NOT pay taxes to criminals but paying a small % to open source devs.
The perception I get from popular discourse (and which is a view I don't hold myself) is that Bitcoin protocol development is supposed to be free from self-interested motivations.
I don't know if very many private companies feel this so strongly that they refrain from trying to work on really central stuff in bitcoin or if there is some other reason.
Some of the label BIP work done by Craig Raw or the two recent wallet metadata BIPs by pythcoiner might be good examples of private orgs pushing forward work that benefits themselves and the protocol as a whole.
But I have a feeling that private companies are reluctant to be seen to be attempting to "change" bitcoin.
I'd like to see more companies advocating for the changes they need/want to see (for instance, in the case of covenants). Not because Bitcoin will end up adopting these changes, but because I think it helps to be able to identify motives clearly.
When it comes to FOSS developers, I have a hard time evaluating why they advocate for or against any given change.
I think some of the work on top of L1 Bitcoin that you mention, like Craig Raw's work, is great and perfect for championing by private companies.
But I have a feeling that private companies are reluctant to be seen to be attempting to "change" bitcoin.
Perhaps. Or Bitcoin Core work is just something that "someone else" does, both in the tragedy of the commons sense, but also in the specialization sense.
It seems like most funding in Bitcoin protocol development is channeled through non-profits. Do you think there will ever be a model where private companies hire individuals to work directly on protocol development?