Who is a "core dev" ?

[LiteCoinGuy]

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

All irrelevant as informed people are using Bitcoin Classic and other flavors of distributions.

Stay far away from Core's Segregated Witness and the Lightning Network.

[inBitweTrust]

Great infographic , but I would just clarify a few things -

1-- There are 368 Core developers thus far but 50-60 active ones
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

2- Lines of code doesn't necessarily dictate the value a developer brings to the table as there are many things that developers contribute towards- research, testing, troubleshooting, documentation that isn't gauged in the infographic above. This being said Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell have clearly contributed the most in all categories these last couple years.

3-- One should acknowledge the many different competing but rarely used implementations libbitcoin, Bitcoin Unlimited, XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcore, and more that make user choice with a diversity of implementations available. Core currently has most of the talent thus it would be great if other implementations found methods of encouraging and paying for other repos.

4-- Core isn't a unified project , but a diverse group of developers with many different backgrounds, opinions, and funding sources. No one group controls Core and anyone can choose to contribute and support this open source project.

Additional information on how to contribute - https://bitcoin.org/en/development https://bitcoincore.org/en/contribute/

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Great infographic , but I would just clarify a few things -

1-- There are 368 Core developers thus far but 50-60 active ones
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

2- Lines of code doesn't necessarily dictate the value a developer brings to the table as there are many things that developers contribute towards- research, testing, troubleshooting, documentation that isn't gauged in the infographic above. This being said Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell have clearly contributed the most in all categories these last couple years.

3-- One should acknowledge the many different competing but rarely used implementations libbitcoin, Bitcoin Unlimited, XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcore, and more that make user choice with a diversity of implementations available. Core currently has most of the talent thus it would be great if other implementations found methods of encouraging and paying for other repos.

4-- Core isn't a unified project , but a diverse group of developers with many different backgrounds, opinions, and funding sources. No one group controls Core and anyone can choose to contribute and support this open source project.

Additional information on how to contribute - https://bitcoin.org/en/development https://bitcoincore.org/en/contribute/

The main problem is that Bitcoin Core is corrupt. It did not start out this way, it was just a hostile take-over by a group of greedy individuals. You can't have corrupt individuals contributing to financial technology for obvious reasons.

This is why I said: Stay far away from Core's Segregated Witness and the Lightning Network.

[inBitweTrust]

Greed is a good thing as long as their interests are aligned with bitcoin. It is clear that this is the case so I'm not too worried.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Greed is a good thing as long as their interests are aligned with bitcoin. It is clear that this is the case so I'm not too worried.

No, greed can't exist in the protocol development of Bitcoin. That's absurd and dangerous.

[inBitweTrust]

Greed is a good thing as long as their interests are aligned with bitcoin. It is clear that this is the case so I'm not too worried.

No, greed can't exist in the protocol development of Bitcoin. That's absurd and dangerous.

We are not here to discuss your fairytale delusions, but reality. Greed, self interest, solidarity, and sacrifice are inescapable aspects of reality. Bitcoin was designed to assume greedy and selfish interests and to incentivize that greed in order to benefit the ecosystem. Similarly, some of the core devs have also designed a contract where their interests are aligned with the success of bitcoin because they have a genuine interest in insuring the main chain succeeds.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Greed is a good thing as long as their interests are aligned with bitcoin. It is clear that this is the case so I'm not too worried.

No, greed can't exist in the protocol development of Bitcoin. That's absurd and dangerous.

We are not here to discuss your fairytale delusions, but reality. Greed, self interest, solidarity, and sacrifice are inescapable aspects of reality. Bitcoin was designed to assume greedy and selfish interests and to incentivize that greed in order to benefit the ecosystem. Similarly, some of the core devs have also designed a contract where their interests are aligned with the success of bitcoin because they have a genuine interest in insuring the main chain succeeds.

Bitcoin was not developed out of greed.

It was developed to help people around the world transact money in a fast and convenient way.

Bitcoin did just fine with-out contracts and paid programmers, this is where real inspiration comes from.

You can't bribe free open-source projects to further your agenda, it will end in failure. Good luck with that

[LiteCoinGuy]

Greed is a good thing as long as their interests are aligned with bitcoin. It is clear that this is the case so I'm not too worried.

No, greed can't exist in the protocol development of Bitcoin. That's absurd and dangerous.

We are not here to discuss your fairytale delusions, but reality. Greed, self interest, solidarity, and sacrifice are inescapable aspects of reality. Bitcoin was designed to assume greedy and selfish interests and to incentivize that greed in order to benefit the ecosystem. Similarly, some of the core devs have also designed a contract where their interests are aligned with the success of bitcoin because they have a genuine interest in insuring the main chain succeeds.

This. Addtionaly: The core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalites and history. most of these people are active in the Cypherpunk-sphere since decades. you can find their writings all over the internet and most of them have a long history.

since Bitcoin is open source, everyone can check the code. so you have to buy hunderds (if not thousands) of independent Cypherpunks around the globe - unlikely

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

No, greed can't exist in the protocol development of Bitcoin. That's absurd and dangerous.

We are not here to discuss your fairytale delusions, but reality. Greed, self interest, solidarity, and sacrifice are inescapable aspects of reality. Bitcoin was designed to assume greedy and selfish interests and to incentivize that greed in order to benefit the ecosystem. Similarly, some of the core devs have also designed a contract where their interests are aligned with the success of bitcoin because they have a genuine interest in insuring the main chain succeeds.

This. Addtionaly: The core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalites and history. most of these people are active in the Cypherpunk-sphere since decades. you can find their writings all over the internet and most of them have a long history.

since Bitcoin is open source, everyone can check the code. so you have to buy hunderds (if not thousands) of independent Cypherpunks around the globe - unlikely

The majority of core developers do not contribute code anymore, therefor if you eliminate them from the list - you are left with a handful of developers.

It's not about checking the code, it's about falling for the direction of which an agenda is pushing out of greed. If you ply someone with cash and promises, most will follow your direction. Others, like Gavin - won't follow because they are not in this for greed.

The reason that I support Classic is because it keeps Bitcoin the way it was originally designed with-out adding any bi-products. It is currently too risky to modify Bitcoin the way Blockstream would like to. This has worked 7 billion dollars later, besides a blocksize increase - it will continue to work for many billions more.

These are facts and I suggest you all be more concerned with the security of the software you run because when Core pulls another 180, all your funds will be under hub control and you will be very upset over the problems it will put you through. Welcome to BitcoinPaypal.

[BitcoinXio]

This graphic is actually a bad representation of work that has gone into developing bitcoin core. As a matter of fact, Greg Maxwell explained why best in a reddit post, which I pasted the relevant parts below.

The graph systematically under-represents the contributions of some people like Peter Todd (who, like me is also very design/review/analysis/test heavy) and Luke-jr (who tries a lot of experimental things that don't land, but which are still valuable exploration)... (or Wumpus and Jonas simply because they've done a LOT of the UI work; or Jeff's RPC work from when he was at bitpay)... and to some extent "most of the work" is review is true for everyone working on Core.

It's a bit of an interesting a choice that it leaves out the wallet and apparently all UI parts (RPC, etc.): it's filtered to include only "core" the consensus, blockchain, p2p network, etc. (this is noted on the graph) I guess it was created to answer a particular question about the more meaty parts of the system.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... rs/czg6kd1

[LiteCoinGuy]

i agree the graph has limitations.