Thread

🛡️
"If you have this disconnect between core devs that value one thing and the users that value something else. I mean something's gotta give at some point, right? Either you get developers more inline with the users, or a lot of the users kinda end up leaving. This is not a trivial concern. It's a big attack surface. We've seen it in these communities where a lot of this political stuff enters and then the next thing you know it gets completely, sort of subsumed by this movement..." Chat #148 - 'It Doesn't Pass the Smell Test' with Jimmy Song @jimmysong

Replies (20)

User driven protocol development is retarded The users are retarded and don't understand anything. Thepeopleareretarded.gif
Guy Swann's avatar Guy Swann
"If you have this disconnect between core devs that value one thing and the users that value something else. I mean something's gotta give at some point, right? Either you get developers more inline with the users, or a lot of the users kinda end up leaving. This is not a trivial concern. It's a big attack surface. We've seen it in these communities where a lot of this political stuff enters and then the next thing you know it gets completely, sort of subsumed by this movement..." Chat #148 - 'It Doesn't Pass the Smell Test' with Jimmy Song @jimmysong
View quoted note →
🛡️
There's another angle people haven't covered on Core vs. Knots. The average tenure of a core maintainer is about 3 years. In total, they've got 19 years of collective experience as maintainers. Luke, meanwhile, has 14 years of experience maintaining Knots. Suddenly the "one guy" thing doesn't seem quite so obviously problematic, especially as experience in year 1 and experience in year 5 and experience in year n are not all created equal. That all said, the answer really is more node options. We could explore having core maintainers living in a monastery and taking an oath of poverty and undergoing extreme training to beat out of them any ego and desire to be known as having made a mark to try to shape them into perfect stewards of a system that is bigger than all of us, or we could let the market shape people with open competition. As much as the notion of Bitcoin Knights Citadeliers (Citadelars?) is an amusing image, market competition seems to be far, far more realistic. image
Straight up
Guy Swann's avatar Guy Swann
"If you have this disconnect between core devs that value one thing and the users that value something else. I mean something's gotta give at some point, right? Either you get developers more inline with the users, or a lot of the users kinda end up leaving. This is not a trivial concern. It's a big attack surface. We've seen it in these communities where a lot of this political stuff enters and then the next thing you know it gets completely, sort of subsumed by this movement..." Chat #148 - 'It Doesn't Pass the Smell Test' with Jimmy Song @jimmysong
View quoted note →
All centralization will be attacked. Bitcoin implementation centralization was the last angle to exploit, and so it has been. A healthyimplementation landscape means at least a handful of competing node projects with double digit usage base percentages and at least 3 different languages, some of them memory safe BTW.
🛡️
Follow the Money. Who funds the devs obviously has influence, no matter what. Example: If I choose vc or grant money then my primary duty is to those who funded me. If I choose not to chase grant money, then I have to be more accountable to the end users who are paying for a product or service that I am producing. When the incentives are not aligned with the users, then you have this disconnect. Full Stop.