There seems to be genuine confusion about how open source works. In particular some people believe that Bitcoin Core developers have a fiduciary duty, either towards them personally or towards some general notion of the Bitcoin network. They are surprised that I and some others respond to this rather aggressively.
Remember that this is the argument Craig Wright tried to make. He failed, but not after millions of dollars were burnt on defending these developers. And not after several quit because of the stress. Don't go down this path.
To put it as a catchy phrase: open source means you can do whatever you want with the code, not with the people who write it.
Open source lets you fork code, and modify it to your liking. That's pretty much what I do every day, which isn't to say that I don't also try to make sure other people like it. I get paid in Bitcoin and OpenSats keeps their whole treasury in it, so the idea that I want destroy potential future income is rather retarded.
Part of CSW's demands was that Bitcoin Core wrote specific (confiscation) code for him. Eventually he just hired people to write it for him, as one should, but somehow that still wasn't enough for him. I get a very similar vibe from people who run Knots but yet don't find that enough. Should we worry about a new round of lawsuits?
Replies (39)
You owe nothing to anybody. Thank you for working on Bitcoin, those who're watching know how valuable your contributions are 🫡
As contributeur to another open source project, I approve your message. The project is the objective, not the people. I change things on my project with the best intention but I'm perfectly aware that somebody else WILL change my contribution. I sleep like a baby.
What an odd note. Thanks for working on Bitcoin. Core developers want to remove the option to configure something people care about, rightfully or not. Comparing people who are unhappy about this to Faketoshi seems to show a deep misunderstanding of people, history, and current actions. Core developers are either failing at educating their users, or failing at understanding them.
🙄
Not even a discussion. Here we are free. 😎❤️
Bitcoin isn’t just some random open source project.
The last part is silly. The people running Knots (no dog in this fight) have strong opinions, i.e. they care about the future of Bitcoin. Core has a defacto monopoly thus they care what is in it. Sure they can just quietly run Knots and stop annoying you, but they should have the ability to explain WHY they are running Knots.
I haven't seen anything to indicate a round of lawsuits. What would they sue for? It would get thrown out. But to me it sounds like Core developers are annoyed that opposing opinions are being voiced.
So we should not care what changes are made, never disagree or question? No. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. There are plenty of quiet, sleepy open source projects out there that nobody cares about. Go work on them and you will have all the peace and quiet you desire. You seem surprised that Bitcoin users care. You are aware of how high the stakes are, right?
Are you really trying to compare noderunners who don't want a shitcoin casino on their node to Craig Wright?
Man you guys are desperate.
If you question dev decisions you're as bad as Craig Wright. This discussion has hit a new low point.
nostr:nevent1qqszsfxxzcxgm30rdf9s7fyc4lw0pgfpj8p8vchczqv4rcngwajdntqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyzrgt6l0vefn3htfx83veheur8vlpedpqe7frrezuuypcf2clra0sqcyqqqqqqgqsyw58
Whatever you do, don't you dare question the Devs!!!!
Sjors only cares about the next person he can scam rather than the greater good.
To compare bitcoin to any other open source project seems pointless at this stage. This is a once off event and we have an actual shot at protecting this as open source money until critical mass. You are building on the shoulders of giants. To pretend there is no public responsibility sounds reckless. No legal duty perhaps. Definitely a profound moral one.
Bitcoin Core in fantasy land
This whole idea that Bitcoin Core devs owe anyone a fiduciary duty is such a wild misunderstanding of open source. It’s like demanding a chef cook you a custom meal because you bought their cookbook. Craig Wright’s lawsuit was a disaster—millions spent, devs stressed out, some even quit. And for what? The court shut it down, but the damage was done. Open source means you get the code, not the coders. You want something specific? Fork it, hire someone, or code it yourself. That’s the beauty of it.
Are you okay? Bitcoin Knots is open source and doesn't make any harm to you. Why do you go on with the smear campaign?
Who's mentioned anything about fiduciary duty besides Sjors?
🫡 🙏
Yes, it is. You are free to do with the code what you please. They are not your slaves, they can do whatever they choose.
This could go both ways
Hi Sjors.
I can see how you could arrive at this stage, considering the impact faketoshi might have had on the devs.
I can only speak for myself and your integrity is pretty clear to me.
For me it's about the op_return discussion itself. Filtering is important. I think not many people leave their LAN unprotected and get rid of their firewall, just because of some usecase they might miss otherwise. That's an over the top example, but back to first principles, it should make it clear. As a noderunner, I want that freedom to tweak parameters to my liking and just relay whatever ends up there. Putting my foot down is all I want. From there on it's a numbers game and I'm well aware of my little contribution, but I want it to be there anyway.
A principled take. But that's bitcoin for all of us, the human factor is what makes it all work.
Thank you for contributing to Bitcoin. It must be very stressful to work on such a big open source project as this.
Nonetheless, I want you to know that a community of core users / node runners (who are also volunteers) are requesting core developers that they want to retain optionality that they currently have. Yes, it’s a technical discussion, but let’s also agree that the PR is not that technical; that is why people flooded in to put their view. Some penny for your thought.
Once again, thank you for all you do for bitcoin.
Open-source means you can fork and modify code, but you can’t demand developers follow your vision. Bitcoin Core devs aren’t obligated to anyone — they contribute voluntarily. The idea that they have a fiduciary duty to users or the Bitcoin network is a misconception.
Craig Wright tried to force developers to write code for his own vision, and failed. Now, we’re seeing similar demands from those who run Knots but want more control. Open-source isn’t about controlling people, it’s about freedom to build. If you don’t like Bitcoin Core, fork it. But don’t expect devs to code for you.
Bitcoin doesn’t owe anything to anyone
I mean people ARE choosing to run knots because core is providing less control for node runners. Pretending it’s the other way around and playing the victim is some next level gaslighting. Nobody is suing anyone. People are voicing their opinion. It was ignored so they are opting to run a different piece of code. That’s how the system is supposed to work. It’s working as intended.
For a project of this importance forking has serious implications, and isn't a trivial matter as Sjors makes it out to be. I would rather see agreement and users concerns taken seriously. Forking core is a last resort option and I'm glad we have it. But anyone who cares about the success of core, and I do, won't tritely say "just go fork it". It's lazy and dismissive. Sjors doesn't need to worry, we all know we can fork or run knots.
You are pushing unwanted changes.
People who don’t want the changes are Craig Wright.
This laughable and ridiculous
Lmfao what has that got to do with today when core devs want to encourage shitcoiners ?
Calle #1 priority keep everyone’s opensats money flowing
This seems to me to be too exaggerated a discussion for the value it has. It's not a real problem this unleashed these days 🤷♂️ very few blocks are affected by real spam and does not put the integrity of bitcoin at risk. Everything else is noise and power games between developers. I don't want to know anything about it and if lawsuits are triggered their business
This seems to me to be too exaggerated a discussion for the value it has. It's not a real problem this unleashed these days 🤷♂️ very few blocks are affected by real spam and does not put the integrity of bitcoin at risk. Everything else is noise and power games between developers. I don't want to know anything about it and if lawsuits are triggered their business
nevent1qqszsfxxzcxgm30rdf9s7fyc4lw0pgfpj8p8vchczqv4rcngwajdntqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqjf2xxw
I think it’s about 1,5 to 2 years ago when I asked the following question:
“When the masses start running a different client or even a different client is actively pushed on their umbrel/start9 etc would this be a danger to bitcoin?”.
I’m curious how your answer is now, I vividly remember your answer back then. My worry is that masses are not rational. And you can be right technically, but the way of communicating is crucial. Bitcoin is just people and people will be manipulated. Social engineering is a study by itself.
No one said you had a fiduciary duty.
People have been donating to core devs to decentralize their funding so maybe their voices will at least be taken into account.
nostr:nevent1qqsr5dgu2y5rn008fk5v8xe5z4vpvmqhnx8wpcd05w62g7uxspskxmqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8zyc984uem8w3sqaq3r3zk0y7w7kxj4dput9jmmwm9t7g0juue4spsgqqqqqqsgh5wgl
Exactly. Mechanic and the like are trying to inform the centre hub that there is a large constituent of users that put the moneyness of bitcoin above all else and we take it so seriously that we may feel the need to fork if other functionalities are being prioritised that may threaten that. I certainly don't want to have to do that. But I'm not smart enough to say in this case, so I want long and drawn out nuanced debate before I'm told what the next upgrade is being handed down.
"open source means you can do whatever you want with the code, not with the people who write it."
True. It is also true that the core does not decide which software we run.
Open-Source is becoming just a buzzword at this point.
Look into the Free Software philosophy. That's how open-source should work.
I think his point is that any philosophical or moral notions applied to open source are projections.
Open source means the source is open. That's it. If you want to add more meaning on top of that you can—but then you also have to add more words. At least that's how I read his point.
Open source projects are the best because they are alive, they evolve, they are happy and sad, they represent the people who use them; like Bitcoin
