nostr:npub1ahaz04ya9tehace3uy39hdhdryfvdkve9qdndkqp3tvehs6h8s5slq45hy

Maybe he is an ossification Maxi is the only thing I can think of, but still the protocol and a lot of open source projects still need funding and maintenance.

I strongly agree. The only argument that I can think of from nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m side is he might see any change on the base chain protocol is an danger ro the stability of it. So he might think it shouldn’t be “upgraded”. Do whatever you fancy on layer 2 but leave base-chain as it is. Which is not something I hear debated enough. There is this talk about ordinals and it’s related to this difference in approach. So I can understand if he thinks like this he probably don’t see the point supporting to the biggest threat he can think of.

But just to contradict myself I can also see the point where this people actually do their best to keep the network protect against some vulnerabilities it might already possess. Maybe what opensats should do (I think nostr:npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc is the perfect asset for this) better communicate why BitcoinDevs are important and should be supported. Probably nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx and nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy already discussed this but I may be ignorant.

Maybe nostr:npub14mcddvsjsflnhgw7vxykz0ndfqj0rq04v7cjq5nnc95ftld0pv3shcfrlx can suggest some good discussions about this.

Plebs only. Up the plebs. ✊🏻

It’s about time for nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m to move his company into real development of the space. If he doesn’t deliver, $MSTR fails. You’re a bitcoin development company, do more than nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

Dude has a thousand hours on podcasts and no one asked him that question?

I asked this once in Saif's telegram group and this is one of the responses I agree with from an austrian economic perspective:

"I think I'm with saylor on this. I don't like the culture of Bitcoin development running on donations. I find that to be a massive attack vector, and also a recipe failure. Nothing good gets built by charity. I prefer having professionals handle it. I also prefer if Bitcoin devs invest in Bitcoin and become wealthy and have an incentive to develop Bitcoin to make it better. If they need funding, I prefer if companies or individuals fund them for specific jobs.

The culture of glorifying donating for Bitcoin devs is misplaced. This isn't a charity. This is serious business.

Donations exert pressure over development and create centralization risks and also create a professional bureaucratic class that has an inordinate say in how Bitcoin is run. I know for example John Newberry has received tons of funding and it did get to his head and he did start acting like the boss of Bitcoin.

If saylor were to give out a specific grant for open source devs it would be a risk, it would make him too influential and it could make the devs too powerful.

If saylor wants something done, he'll hire a real engineer and not call it a donation.”

Very good points made, but rather than Bitcoin development being about tinkering, “getting one of your upgrades into core”, or implementing what your benefactor wants, how’s about viewing it as maintaining the skills, competences and capabilities to be able to make changes if particular issues arise in the future. If we ossify and developers disband, there will be no one left with the ability, if, in a particular scenario where “Bitcoin had to be saved”

Does Bitwise ETF dinate to open source projects?