https://cdn.satellite.earth/0dd7aac905fed89d733be65f93d6bef8830c9d19f988e3f0a938ab4760cdddca.mp4
Discussion
"ungoverned funding"... gfy Saylor
There it is
The longer version is better.
He is a plonker it seems
Do you think he is right or wrong for potentially altering the course of that major company funding? I don’t know why I phrased it like this…. As of everyone doesn’t know what he is talking about.
he makes really good arguments against the stupid strawman he presented. Top notch. Back to the regular programming...
BITCOIN IS TRUTH
It indeed has strawman vibes.
So he did do it
There is the source
🤣
Hardly the same framing that was given
Exactly. Saylor is right on this.
Especially when you put it in the context of the whole conversation
Ops are just upset he has a different opinion so they use hyperbolic language while clutching their pearls that anyone would disagree with their freedom technology influencers
Don’t get me wrong, I respect nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx. But it’s not like he doesn’t have a potential interest in getting to decide how donated money gets spent.
Another big thing to note is Saylor is discussing paying for changes to bitcoin the protocol. Odell is looking far more broadly at the ecosystem, so they are talking past each other a bit. In large measure, they aren’t disagreeing with each other.
He literally just admitted that he told walk street firms to not fund bitcoin development
McCormack is a total prat too.
what a fuck wit
“Ungoverned”
🤡 so he has no confidence in bitcoin's security
I like my open source funding ungoverned and kyc free
Are we so naive to think the block size wars will be the first time rich people think they have more control or influence than exists in reality? Saylor is lost, and maybe captured. But Bitcoin doesn't care. Tick tock, next block.
One more time for the simps
https://video.nostr.build/e76e116b81dce74d517e725f3accfe8aff84259127c141cf781120e77af61304.mp4
✨✨✨⚡👏👏
🥱🥱🥱
Wait wait wait... he says "don't fund random shit that might destablise the network", implying that it is WHO THEY FUND that is the problem, then immediately flips it and says "do you want the people who fund crypto to fund Bitcoin development?" as if to imply it is WHO IS FUNDING that is the problem... which is it?
I would say it is “who” is funding you. Last year everyone would’ve wanted P. Diddy to fund them. Not so much anymore. The Piper always comes calling and someone will have to pay.
The difference here is that we know that this big company is up to no good already.
this is not thermodynamically sound
A valid critique and why a “firewall” between donors (any) and developers/projects is so important for both groups
HRF, Brink and OpenSats all provide this mechanism and a deeply knowledgeable group of committed Bitcoiners to assess relative grant application merits
An utterly thankless task but so important to reduce the risk of development capture 🤝
The question is what happens when 2-3 generations pass? How do we ensure that the torch gets passed down to generations of people that will live in a bitcoin world and take such things for granted?
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
It will be glorious when he dumps all his Bitcoin after protocol privacy upgrades.
Use the give a shit matrix
Saylor is right
Not bad 😅
Yes, actually I would Mike. That would be the one good thing they do
Feels cherry picked for outrage bait. Still not going to watch another full 2 hours of Saylor for the full context.
Your loss.
Bitcoin needs armor, not fins - szabo
True that
Saylor wasn’t around when the block-size war happened. I can’t wait for him to see the network curing itself in his time with Bitcoin.
Fear-mongering spin?
The infrustracture for the world's economy shouldn't be built by those just looking to capture it so they can recreate the gold standard on digital rails and sit on top of the world as the ultimate gatekeepers of humanity's future.
Need an actual dev to ask him this question. Someone who might to not ask a strawman question leading him to provide a strawman answer.
New category of people: "actual devs".
As opposed to, you know, just "devs".
👏
Would you want your enemy to support you with your personal development?
- "Ehm... HELL YEAH!! Ain't gonna happen, but SURE!"
And then we win!
Honestly don't know what to think about it.
I love Odell and the whole team ' (Opensats, HRF etc) dedication to support this space which is admirable, but can't we hear his point of view ?
Can't he be concerned by the "who" is funding Bitcoin development ?
PS: I'm probably missing a lot of inputs on this specific issue but so far, I'm not so sure that he is the bad guy some people say he is. He is just playing his 4D chess game as a big regulated public company. But I still think he is on our side overall.
We don't have to "slay all of our heroes" just because it's possible to do so when we disagree
IT IS AN OPEN SYSTEM. HE CAN HAVE ANY OPINION HE WANTS.
THAT SAID, MANY PEOPLE ACCUSED ME OF LYING WHEN I MADE MY CLAIM.
NOW WE CAN PUT THAT BEHIND US AND HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION.
YES
YES. I’ll take humility, integrity, honesty, consistency, dogged determination and willingness to admit mistakes over a person making a good investment decision any time, every time.
I’m wondering if this is simply a good investment for Saylor rather than a real commitment to the Bitcoin sphere.
Would we be hearing so much Saylor if it hadn’t turned out well? You’ve heard and will continue to hear ODELL. I’m with MATT and will ride Bitcoin to zero.
P.S. He growing more arrogant with time. Fuck Saylor.
P.P.S. GOOD MORNING NOSTR! 😎🍒
You posted an out of context 30 second clip that proves nothing. Post his entire response to the question. It's exceptionally considered and puts the long term health of Bitcoin front and center with zero ambiguity.
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.
No strings attached grants are ungoverned, no?
Or do they tell developers what to do?
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.
Def a BS answer.
Saylor's main point is that we need true digital scarcity. Bitcoin sloved that already. We need to be extremely cautious about making so-called improvements on L1.
Last night my sister was cutting her daughter's hair. She thought it was so pleasing to hear the snip snip sound and feel the blades as they cut through each bit of hair as she made things more even. However, as she went along making perfections here, trimming there, she hardly realized before it was too late that her daughter's hair was no longer long and beautiful but too short and uncomplementary to the girl's aesthetic! Her continued improvements actually led to failure.
Don't do this to the world's only digital scarcity. I believe the saying goes, "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
His argument is actually not bad.
agreed. his position is quite rational.
it seems like a large subset of users would rather allow an out of context, 30 second clip, to trigger their pathological trust issues, than invest 60 minutes to hear out his actual position on the issue...
Good should fund BTC dev, bad should do nothing. Oh wait, the world doesn't work that way
Saylor really has no fucking clue what he is talking about, does he?
Thing is timestamped, sum up;
don't be a rushed dumb fuck,
mind your ego,
stay humble and learn what that means
Strange take.
He sounds like he hasn't seen the list of projects supported by nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f.
why are so many so desperate to malign Saylor? If you want an accurate summation if his take on this, at least listen to the whole episode... yikes
1) I HAVE NEVER MALIGNED SAYLOR.
2.) PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE WHOLE INTERVIEW.
3) THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC AND OPEN DISCUSSION OF IT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. GLAD IT IS HAPPENING.
The part where he suggests Bitcoin development should mirror the conservative nature of other highly technical engineering processes e.g. aeronautics, seems far more worthy of amplification than this oddly selected 30 seconds....
Exactly, discussion. Saylor said so himself in the interview. Slow thoughtful discussion.
Well I learned a bit about Jack Dorsey last night via interview videos and you (Bitcoiners) should too.
Props, and I am definitely NOT an altruist.
Learned more than enough about Michael Saylor this morning. Don’t get me wrong, Saylor’s been good FOR Bitcoin, but Bitcoin has been better TO him.
Based on what I’ve found, would you even want Saylor to contribute to OpenSats? For one thing:
9. Growing up, Saylor played Dungeons and Dragons, and always insisted on being the Dungeon Master because he "liked to create and control situations."
What Saylor does with $30M:
10. He owns a yacht named USHER — after a computer software, not the singer. (Check out link at end)
More:
12. MicroStrategy is a business intelligence company that uses computer software to collect and sell consumer insight to customers.
13. In many ways, MicroStrategy is the forebearer of targeted ads as we know them today.
16. In 2000, MicroStrategy was accused by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fraudulent finance reports. The claims were eventually settled, with Saylor himself paying $8.3 million of his personal money.
17. Following the accusations, MicroStrategy's stock plunged $6 million.
27. In addition to investing MicroStrategy's money into Bitcoin, Saylor himself (as of October,) held close to 18,000 Bitcoin.
Much of above ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: FEB. 11, 2021
Even more telling:
https://www.justluxe.com/lifestyle/luxury-yachts/feature-1953972.php
IMO, who the fuck is Saylor to question motive?
why are you so desperate to defend him?
I'm not interested in defending people, they can do that themselves. I'm interested in defending truth, and calling it out when certain people go witch-hunting.
Kinda weird that a clip with no comment is somehow maligning him. I haven't listened to his interview yet but I assumed Odell has. Everyone should make up their own minds and act accordingly. See, this personality and hero worship I see is really a bigger issue(not saying you worship Saylor).
The broader context is important.
It was clipped to bolster an ongoing misrepresentation.
Speaking the truth and calling out witch-hunting shouldn't be conflated with hero worship.
All of our lives go better when we have access to more of the truth.
We all have access to the full interview. WBD is a big podcast. Not saying you were doing hero worship but plenty do with Saylor.
It’s almost like he didn’t want to be held responsible for the freedom it offers from the banks and governments
Watch the whole interview. All in all, I think he is more on your side, than you think.
STAY HUMBLE STACK SATS
🫡
My interpretation of his position with the devs, from the interview, was to make small steps that strengthen security and increase the base value proposition of Layer 1.
Layer 1 are the Nuclear Reactors
Layer 3 are the Acai Bowl Delivery Apps
What a complete fucking retard
This is inane.
It isn't unlimited or ungoverned funding, and it isn't risking destabilizing the network. Rather, it is the lack of open source developer funding is what risks destabilizing the network (lack of eyeballs doing deep code review).
If any of the founders that control premined shitcoins started donating to bitcoin developers, I'd be happy about it. They have no means of changing or destabilizing the network. I choose what software I run and the consensus rules I subscribe to.
Saylor does a masterful job of talking out of both sides of his mouth throughout this interview.
nostr:note1lztgv2g4jesq4kkkadhstzzg7kernrqudw85ca4lpssq5p8wtmzq4y5qag
Solana devs (or whatever shitchain) are more than welcome to develop on bitcoin. If it's a good addition and I choose to upgrade my node to run it because I think it's the way to go then that's how Bitcoin works.
NOTE: doubtful Sol devs can cut the mustard in bitcoin development.
Not for lack of skill but different principles and priorities
Yes. Yes I would.
If the development is open source, what does it matter? What is the fear here?
nostr:note1lztgv2g4jesq4kkkadhstzzg7kernrqudw85ca4lpssq5p8wtmzq4y5qag
Hi comments are reasonable, probably good to have him on your podcast.
Develop just to develop on Bitcoin core is a bad idea.
On Bitcoin core, it must solve a real and durable problem (not an hypothetical or a temporary one) and benefits to everyone in the Network.
I agree 100% with this
Saylor is wrong on this one.
First, I’m a Bitcoin developer, but before all, I’m a cypherpunk. No money in the world will make me go to any other path. By saying “we must avoid funding developers” Saylor is saying our souls are up for sale to the highest bid. Guess what, if I wanted to get rich, I would accept all job offers I get to work on Solana or Ethereum. But I don’t, so I stay poor and humble.
Second, shitcoin networks can still fund developers to develop on Bitcoin. It’s an open protocol, so anyone can do it. But by saying this, Saylor puts the good guys at a big disadvantage: we do not get paid, while the barbarians at the gate are.
Third, Saylor’s company is betting on new products (ex: DiD) on Bitcoin, so Bitcoin developers are, in lack of other words, competition for MicroStrategy.. So, Saylor is just saying “do not fund my competition”, which is, at least, dishonest.
My 2 sats.
it is opinion and I understand where is coming from.
The best approach is influencing the developpement rather than leaving it to someone else.
The 21M cap, decentralisation, censorship resistant and non confiscatable are none negociable properties and can never change.
FOR EXAMPLE SEGWIT WAS A MAJOR MISTAKE
yep, segwit was stupid, it ended up being a de facto blocksize doubling and is how the ordinal shit started to make shitstorms on the mempool recently, and we got taproot now but i don't think that really enables anything
covenants might cause some miscellaneous bullshit but won't affect the wider network either
segwit, on the other hand, opened up vulnerabilities, numerous of the core devs agree that these are bugs being exploited
What bothers me most about Saylor isn't what he says or him. Its the hero worship of people like him. Make sure you are thinking for yourself. Don't hold secondhand opinions from Saylor or Odell.