Yes, this was always going to happen.

Nice! I've been eagerly waiting for someone to actually implement this for some time. FHE is magic.

Developers get rewarded for shipping something big and attention-grabbing, not for doing the boring work of securing the network. They need to make their mark so they can attract grants and keep funding flowing.

Is that supposed to describe Core? Because that clearly isn't how funding has been working the past decade. On the contrary we had many people complain that they couldn't get funding to work on a flashy soft fork, or singular big feature extension, while pushing funding for testing, infrastructure, fuzzing, hardening, build system, and p2p.

There are a bunch of fresh contributors coming in to Bitcoin Core that have nothing to do with chaincode. Chaincode also hasn't run a residency in a few years. Their recent programs have been fully remote and I know a few people with families who have done it. The majority of contributors don't live in those listed cities and don't work out of these offices.

I am confused by the goals you would like to achieve. You say that you don't want drama and be apolitical, but you also want to take principled positions, such as rejecting bip110. That seems in conflict to each other, and I don't really feel that is different to what Bitcoin Core is trying to achieve.

By what mechanism will donors be able to express themselves?

that will never happen due to physical constraints

Yes.

Looks like Trezor helped with the research, which is pretty cool. Nice to see that they are still this friendly to security research.

It doesn't put anything in the way of collaboration

Absolutely.

I think if I'd write up a mission statement for Bitcoin Core, it would sound very similar.

I read somewhere else that you'd want to basically provide long term support for older Core versions. If you have the resources to do that well, why not do that on Core itself? The reason we offer backports to three versions is mostly that we don't have the resources to do more - the further you go back, the more difficult it is to maintain the required toolchains, dependency versions, and CI. Of course it also gets harder to maintain security patches and landing them in secret gets trickier, but I think that is a manageable trade off.

This could easily be a full time job for someone. Just going around, gathering and maintaining new and existing requirements, and advocating for them competently.

From my perspective it is the latter. There have been some significant recruitment efforts this year again, and so far not much has materialised from them. The project is not in a terrible place manpower wise either, it managed to attract some great talent the past few years. It is clearly getting harder to get new graduates to be interested in it, and with the past decade it has spent on the market already, many established developers that would be interested in it, are already captured in its orbit, or moved on to other things.

not know of a single one who has spoken to someone from Core or been asked their opinion about whether or not what's being worked on is something they agree with.

Well, Bob as had conversations with a few developers, and there is a discussion between him and Pieter on the mailing list, but not sure what exactly counts here.

That said this has been been a problem since way back, and something that I would genuinely like to remedy. We should be useful to miners, big and small alike. If someone happens to read this that is running a small operation, I'd like to hear what we could improve for them.

2 hours for bitcoin core if we are also counting unreleased software.

Reprehensible to be honest.

The aspirations he raises in the last three minutes are good.

It's actually a standard design for p2pool. This old article from Alexei explains it fairly well https://alexeizamyatin.medium.com/p2pool-proof-of-work-reusing-for-trustless-share-validation-8650d0235407

I mention most of my nits. I think you should in this case too. The test framework option was introduced after the original PR was opened: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c985eb854cc86deb747caea5283c17cf51b6a983 , so it should have been picked up during some rebase along the line.

It is very quick to fix and there are other review comments that require action from the author anyway.

It is all vibes, and the vibes will never be pure enough on a censorship resistant public bulletin board.

Yes.

She got into the position by being really good and convincing other contributors, includng Luke, of her abilities.

She was really good at her work.

I don't share his impressions at all. Obviously I am highly biased, but from my perspective the project is as cypherpunk as ever, still has the OGs he named heavily involved, and moderation is as light handed as possible. The geographical distribution listed is very incomplete. Also not clear to me who the DEI hires are supposed to be here?