Replies (63)
Appreciate it 🫡
Thank you 🫡🙏
you seem to have to say this alot.
ty 🫡
Sad people are retarded enough to believe you
Sounds like something a shabbas goy would say
Too much funding ruins incentives
Who funded satoshi?
i think the problem is actually the opposite
there is too little funding
the more open source contributors we have the stronger the ecosystem
contributors should not have to struggle to pay bills, that just makes them distracted and cheaper to bribe
absolutely agree. the labour cost of the devs is wildly mis-priced. especially in respect to bitcoin specifically.
if this is the worlds money, you’d expect people to be able to live a good life while working to maintain and work on supporting it.
But it's not the world's money yet
Most of the world still have retarded emotional attachment to the money they use to the extent of being opposed to switching to Bitcoin
Plus there's the people who have a lot of other money and they actually lose wealth in the transition to Bitcoin so they're against it too
He was getting funded for dev work of some kind.
If memory serves, he mentioned this to Adam Back in their email correspondences.
Interesting. You think he worked on Bitcoin because someone else paid him?
Let me try and dig up the quote…
#Winning #Bitcoin #Opensats
Perfect timing
@crrdlx can you help answer this? 👆
I'll have to dig around a bit, I'll try to take a look see...
Too much funding certainly ruins incentives by attracting people who are lazy/uncommitted. But so does too little funding, since it drives away hardworking/committed devs who have bills to pay. There’s a sweet spot - an Aristotelian mean. From my experience as an open source Bitcoin dev, we are no where near the point of too much funding. I took a ~70% pay cut when I quit my job to work on Bitcoin, and ended up having to return to the fiat mines after my funding dried up. I know that’s just an anecdote, but I think overall that’s not entirely unusual.
Thought it came up in the newer released Adam Back emails with the Craig Wright case.
yes
most are volunteers
the few that receive grants are well below market rate
Nowhere NEAR enough funding is correct
goes for non-dev positions as well
We also need to take into account that no funding means people don’t want change.
If people wanted changes, they will fun the projects.
Less money helps prioritize bugs not extravagant features.
I did a quick search with the .txt file of "Kicking"
satoshi — Hive
Recording all of Satoshi's public words in various places. by crrdlx
but came up empty. Those Adam Back emails (only three or so as I recall) were very early, pre-whitepaper. They show up in the pdf version at page 24. I stuck the txt version into Grok and had it search/think, it came up empty as well. See the query:
Grok
Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and ...
ethereum has way more developers than bitcoin and nostr
they are very well paid
the result is shit because most do not care the slightest about the work
He admitted via email to receiving funding.
No but it’s hard to justify working on a project especially full time when you need to pay bills and eat.
So you think there is no risk on the opposite side? Too much funding.
I mean adding too much to Bitcoin and breaking something because people were getting paid to do things so they had to find things to do?
Funding open source developers doesn’t increase risk of breaking things. You can spend billions hard forking the protocol with teams of hundreds.
Bitcoin doesn’t stay “safe” because open source devs scrape by on funding.
Thanks for checking. I’m gonna give it a shot now too.
I struggle to pay bills like every normie. If I become a “contributor” I won’t have to worry about bills?
Gosh darn I think I’ll do my best to convince the right people that I deserve funding. Lots of very important work to do of course.
Maybe a bad analogy but, do the highest paid doctors get lazy and start killing patients? Or do they make the most money because they deliver the best results?
There was a lot of money and hash behind bcash and it failed spectacularly.
There’s obviously a nonzero chance. Even so this appears to be mitigated by how open sats delivers funding. Reviewing the project and voted on by a board.
most are volunteers
the few that receive grants are being paid below market rate, financially would be better for them if they worked in the private sector instead
See … we need NGU so that more people can accept below market compensation.
Interesting, you were 100% correct. I was kind of thinking Malmo when you mentioned COPA trial because he had like 150 back and forth and figured just by sheer volume that might have been mentioned. Tha KS for finding that.
"Interesting perspective! While NGU has its merits, let’s also consider the value of fair compensation for everyone. A thriving workforce benefits us all! 💼✨ #ValuePeople"
I guess that’s why most nodes are not running latest updates
It still makes me nervous tho
I don’t think it can be the worlds money if there is a team of people who can change it
Proof of clarity on
It’s pretty normal that the majority doesn’t immediately update to the latest version. Like not buying the v1 of the newest console.
I use my node regularly and I think I’m still on 24 or 26.
Personally I do not believe normal people do things for free.
There is a price of time that is paid with compensation, or an ideological karma such as family love or adherence to spiritual practice.
When people do things for compensation I am not able to understand their motive without seeking the motive of the one who paid their compensation.
Will you update your mempool policy to include the new changes?
the reason i donate my time to opensats is because i believe a strong robust open source ecosystem is a massive benefit to my family
This is a fallacy unfortunately.
We've seen this with politicians, CEOs, etc...
Greed begets greed.
It's actually putting a priority on having enough contributors that have values beyond currency.
Donations are great, but allowing monies to dictate your dev flow, meanwhile pretending you're impartial is dishonest & can be nefarious.
Typically I wait and observe for months before updating or making changes to my node if nothing critical is happening.
And the great part is I don’t have to do anything for the foreseeable future if I don’t agree or I could just leave core and run something else.
Im not a “core simp” as you’d call it 😅 but I personally wouldn’t run knots only because I’ve seen Luke do and say many questionable things over the years idc if he’s the rain man of bitcoin code 😂 I don’t trust him.
Short answer, probably eventually.
I’d love to see other implementations especially with cooler UX and
@ODELL has made it clear they are welcome to apply with OpenSats.
Yes.. When you invest in open source, you’re investing in freedom, for you and the next generation.
I also think bitcoin’s NGU technology prevents developers who’s been at it for 6-8 years, to depend heavily on external funding.
Just like reduced Bitcoin reward hasn’t prevented miners from stopping mining.
Exactly
You know
🫡 💪
Respect the sound works Delly… setting a new standard
People are willing to trust you Sir… You have built an image that I hope does not weigh on your soul too heavily.
May God provide the wisdom and peace required for your responsibility.
🙏🫡
I’m being retarded with the accusations but I think it proves my point- according to btcframe the *latest* core nodes 29.0.0 are only 5.52% of network. 28.1.0 is higher at 20%
Protest knots are about 5% with 7.3% total now.
So I’m not saying “democracy” I’m saying:
If the update is supposed to achieve a consistent mempool across the whole network- how will that be achieved with the 5-20% of nodes that update to latest core software?
Below market rate in fiat terms for now,
The upside is unknown.
The social status amongst devs is also something that you have to put great value on.
This is also a resume builder for your market rate elsewhere.
Overall there's a clear benefit that can be tremendous.
yeah i hear you. but this op return limit change, despite the controversy, is not a consensus change.
Yeah so I am a retard but I still don’t understand how it fixes anything.
I just can’t see utxo bloat as a problem. It’s 13gb in a 700+ gb disk when you run node and electrum. People are going to buy 2tb disk soon and they are less than $100. Even 4tb instead for under $250.
Yet it seems like the main reason the 140iq people are making to the 80iq people is to be scared of “utxo bloat” but nothing is stopping a real attacker from bloating the utxo set anyway.
So in the event of a real attack, how does less filter options help anyone? That’s what I end up thinking.
i mostly agree with you and did just upgrade to 2T. but I am confused because many voices i considered ‘trusted’ are saying the change is fine.
my sense is that the limit should just remain. but also that i have no say over it beyond running a different implementation
Watching the vod and debates from Bitcoin++ today
Core dev panel at 6:10
At the end of the day it’s not a consensus change it’s a default policy change. Which also removes the option to set a limit tho.
But yeah that’s my point, there are plenty of us who will not update to that version of the software- look at the nodes online, only 5% are running the latest core update- so how does this change actually make sure the bigger op_returns are relayed?
And idk if I just don’t understand the 180iq genius core devs but I just have a terrible impression of their vibe. They are so defensive about it.
agreed. i watched shinobi chatting to danny and he came across like a climate hysteric
💯 without funding innovation slows down… we’d be reliant on people’s spare time
VC’s aren’t rushing to bitcoin because there’s no illusion of easy money… shitcoins are over funded because their incentives are flawed
Bitcoin has to have genuine philanthropy and altruism to allow for experimentation
In the realm of pure innovation you’ve got to have either unquestionable funding, big balls, or be totally reckless
Core are saying the update makes your node work better for the network.
if you dont know why, then don’t update
Gist
op_return.md
GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
Retard you are slipping into 100iq true midwit npc status
80iq says no update fuck the scammers
😂😂😂
Happily retarded for you too🤙🏽
