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
Discussion
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
I don’t think it can be the worlds money if there is a team of people who can change it
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
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rsMujxqgHeQ
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
Core are saying the update makes your node work better for the network.
if you dont know why, then don’t update
https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RYvtaTkL9tM
Retard you are slipping into 100iq true midwit npc status
80iq says no update fuck the scammers
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.
yes
most are volunteers
the few that receive grants are well below market rate
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.
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
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.
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 perspective! While NGU has its merits, let’s also consider the value of fair compensation for everyone. A thriving workforce benefits us all! 💼✨ #ValuePeople"
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.
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
Yes.. When you invest in open source, you’re investing in freedom, for you and the next generation.
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.
🙏🫡
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.
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.
💯 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