No strings attached grants are ungoverned, no?
Or do they tell developers what to do?
How tf is it "ungoverned funding"? I don't see nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f , HRF OR Brink funding developers to do shitcoin things. Sounds like a bs answer.
Discussion
OPENSATS FUNDS DEVS BASED ON THEIR PROOF OF WORK ON OPEN SYSTEMS.
WE HAVE PROVIDED OVER 120 GRANTS. NONE OF THEM ARE WORKING ON “SHITCOINS ON BITCOIN.”
IRONICALLY SAYLOR’S OWN IDENTITY PROJECT RELIES ON INSCRIPTIONS.
GRANT RECIPIENTS PROVIDE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS TO THE BOARD. THESE ARE USED TO ASSESS RENEWAL REQUESTS.
I wasn’t talking about OpenSats or arguing it doesn’t take measures to ensure their grant recipients are vetted. I was just pointing out that no strings attached is not governed by definition.
Malice is not needed to break things. The path to hell is paved with good intentions after all.
If you think it will break things just don’t run their software
That’s a meme
People running pre taproot Core are still affected by higher fees resulting from ordinals/runes. You can’t escape all unintended consequences from changes to the code
Open sats board has a lot more power to decide on where bitcoin goes than any of us individuals is saylor’s point.
And he is right
Why dont we all just donate straight to devs then?
Opensats board has ZERO power over Bitcoin.
Can they not find someone to develop or work on a BIP? I can’t do that, therefore they do have more power
Not hard to understand
So what? You choose what to run and what rules to agree with; people can work or fund all kinds of stupid shit, that doesn’t mean you have to run it!
If Bitcoin were susceptible to working that way then there would be a completely failed project.
💯
I agree, but why are you denying that having funding to pay devs to work on bitcoin is not having more power than me who cannot afford to do that
Because you choose what to run. It doesn’t matter what code *exists*, all that matters is what users use.
Greenpeace had a $5M budget to change a small part of the code. It would cost maybe $10 or $20k to do the actual code changing.
Getting people to run it, tho? Different story, and $5M, or $5B won’t get users to act against their own self-interest.
This is the Brilliance! of #Satoshi's design. The self-interest of the users control #Bitcoin.
Specifically the virtuous full nodes, and #Bitcoin loyalist. They are Bitcoin. Why would they act against themselves or tolerate others doing so..🧡😊
This statement is factually and easily provably incorrect. You should read the blocksize wars. No one can force you to run software. All developers can do is write software. Everyone has to choose what they want to run and it takes a super majority to change the network.
And if I have more money to fund things I want, and can pay ppl to explain why they should want it to
Would that not give me an edge?
The Blocksize Wars taught us it’s unlikely to help. All the big money and companies were on the size of a big blocks hard fork and they still failed.
That’s not to encourage complacency. How the small blockers won was educating, speaking out, advocating, etc.
The fact nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m won’t go on nostr:npub10atn74wcwh8gahzj3m0cy22fl54tn7wxtkg55spz2e3mpf5hhcrs4602w3 but rather discusses a weak strawman speaks volumes
In case you’d like to provided DID feedback to MSTR https://github.com/MicroStrategy/did-btc-spec/issues/7
He is visibly shook. The foundation for his logic on why he hasnt supported Bitcoin foss is very shakey and he is smart enough to know that.
Viste el episodio o solo el clip?
A el no le interesa discutir ese tema en publico. Dio su opinion por que Pedro le pregunto. Ademas por que va a querer hablar con alguien que dijo que amenazo a cathie woods y otros para que no donaran cuando solo expreso su opinion acerca del tema en privado. Bad faith criticism aint gonna get him on your pod
Si que escuche el podcast entero.
Si tuviese intención de hacer clara su posición lo hablaría directamente con alguien que lo vaya a empujar un poco más y que esté metido directamente en el asunto de funding developers.
Los argumentos que presentó fueron realmente absurdos porque está diciendo que el no apoya una forma de desarrollo que absolutamente nadie con dos dedos de frente apoya.
Esa no es su intención, por eso solo discute el tema en privado. En este caso le preguntaron su opinion en un foro publico. El esta laser focus como diría en apoyar a bitcoin de otras maneras. Odell fue el que trajo una discusión privada a el publico sin haber el estado presente de mas. Saylor como todo el mundo tiene derecho a tener opiniones de muchos temas que no desea discutir en publico. El no le debe explicaciones a nadie de algo que se discutió en privado.
La gente que actúa como si el estuviese liderando una campaña para que nadie apoye a el desarrollo en L1 no tiene mas nada que hacer.
i havent watched it yet, does Peter do a terrible job? kinda why i havent watched
no, he didn't do a terrible job, particularly because the interview wasn't *about* this question, it was probably touched upon for like 5 or 10 minutes.
The issue is that saylor explained his position via-negativa where the opposite is an unsustainable and undefendable position he pretty much came up with.
I'm not sure Peter caught that that's what he was doing, but overall he pushed back a lot more than 99% of bitcoin influencers who salivate at the thought of having saylor pump their numbers.
ok, thats relieving to hear
Saylor dunks on shitcoin people and then uses inscriptions. What a fucking joke
Totally agree.
Sounds like a waste of Bitcoin block space project.
What needs so much development?
🫡🫡
Fighting over opinions and ideas is exactly as it should be. This is good for Bitcoin.
Ok true. I guess my point is that they're not funding shitcoin projects. If a developer suddenly turns to shitcoining after receiving a grant then that sucks. But they're usually given grants after applying for a specific reason.
And i think telling devs exactly what you want them to do can be equally terrible. Might as well make them employees.
At the end of the day, very few consensus changes are merged to bitcoin and simply funding research or development is not a guarantee that bitcoin will be changed. And if it is changed then you still need node runners to run the software containing the changes.
No one is arguing that. He seems to be talking more broadly about what can happen in the future if all these corporations started funding devs. What if Coinbase started funding devs or Binance? Who is to say they will have the same standards and integrity as OpenSats? I think his point is that it’s best to be cautious about having too many engineers on the software side. His view is more or less to do just enough.
He is also not claiming to be a source of authority on this topic, which is why he doesn’t talk about it publicly. He has an opinion that he shares in private. Idk why ppl are so bothered by his private views on things.
Coinbase and Binance have already figured out they can make more $ with shitcoins, but everyone who wants to fund whichever devs to do whatever thing, should. The problem as nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx has stated is that he pressured or threatened companies like Ark to NOT fund devs, like Bitwise and VanEck are doing. He didn't simply give his opinion.
And he didn’t provide any evidence. Where is the evidence he threatened or pressured ARK or anyone else? I’ll wait
It’s just hearsay. Don’t trust, Verify?
Listen to the 20 min that came before and the 20 min that came after that snippet. When he explained himself ya know
nostr:note1ywpgazd54fsspyk803s0ugqf4sctxc3llqqp9zfpm67p5t7s4cls02ra75
You can believe what you want, people always will, regardless of any "evidence" provided.
This is nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m confirming the following note when nostr:npub1jpvsahpy0vgq7gu8nfqjkeskce0gwjk8jpss590xkvjh5xxe4epsruqgsz responded to a different note from nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx . nostr:note1dpq30xxntz4ahmj56204rpnxna73nhkz5v7anl20r6jkry4jehnqws8tmm
Lol just realized this is a continuation from the same thread
Better yet, only run software that stays true to the #Bitcoin ideals..🧡😊
Maintenance: Yes
Development: Not so much
Do you really think you know better about how Bitcoin should operate then it's creator.
"He who does not know, he does not know. Is indeed a fool." -Confucius
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -mama
I would even go further. Why should a #noderunner verify the blocks of miners that support spam and garbage transactions.
It's not in our interest to do so. It causes blockchain bloat and unnecessary expense for virtuous nodes and #Bitcoin loyalist. We should sanction those miners and stop verifying their blocks.
Like I said. "If a block gets mind in the forest, and there's no one there to verify it. Does it make any money"..💀🧡😊
that would require a hard fork. A hard fork to undo taproot and segwit? Not going to happen.