In the case of the Core devs, let me see if I can make the case that this is a risk to Bitcoin. Open source Dev communities are particularly sensitive to optics of a project. Who is on a project can very well be a deterrent to who would otherwise want to work on a project. We are constantly told how precious few Core developers are; how particularly difficult it is to work on. Don't you think those guys might actually be a risk to the long-term maintainability of the project, if they could serve as a deterrent to participation? You'd have to be extra-autistic not to be a little weebed out by the fact that there was an absolute void of community discussion about how the people reviewing your code and steering project direction surfaced in the Epstein files.

Replies (2)

"...extra-autistic..." ๐Ÿ‘€ Back isn't a core dev to my knowledge, and his case was farthest back in time, which is why I was seemingly defending him, as I could imagine he'd genuinely be unaware. I see accusations being hurled on X a bit when I've checked in, so it seems some are calling for explanations, but what I guess rubs me the wrong way about it most is it mostly seems like the classic "look at me, I'm part of bitcoin's immune response system, calling out the bad actors" type of behavior that I'm thoroughly sick of and don't miss (see less of it here on nostr where it's more chill). Like I said, you make a good case, and I suppose if the usual influencer suspects aren't at least talking a bit about it, that is annoying and predictable. I guess my stance is to just chill out a bit on _demanding_ explanation, as it's all very new and I don't like mob mentality piling on in the heat of the moment. I expect soon enough he may comment about it, and hopefully dispel any suspicions he was somehow coerced into shady dealings.
โ†‘