Couldn't the core devs be bought?

[ninjag]

This is something that has been bugging me, and as a noob I might not fully get, but couldn't the core devs just destroy everything if, say, paid off by special interests in Washington?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[helloworld]

It's already happening in the form of Blockstream.

They captured the top devs and main communication channels completely.

[LiteCoinGuy]

the core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalities 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

[ninjag]

the core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalities 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

Thanks, LiteCoinGuy.

I agree with you there, and know the code is all viewable and open-source, but what I mean is, could these developers not be paid off to just make an utterly stupid program revision and destroy the system? They can choose to hardfork the block chain, and adjust block size, so why couldn't they be bought to do something really detrimental, as well?

I think this is unlikely. I use and love Bitcoin, but this is basically the one thing I am not quite sure about.

[LiteCoinGuy]

the core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalities 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

Thanks, LiteCoinGuy.

I agree with you there, and know the code is all viewable and open-source, but what I mean is, could these developers not be paid off to just make an utterly stupid program revision and destroy the system? They can choose to hardfork the block chain, and adjust block size, so why couldn't they be bought to do something really detrimental, as well?

I think this is unlikely. I use and love Bitcoin, but this is basically the one thing I am not quite sure about.

as i said: they cant do something which harms the whole bitcoin-world because there are too many eyes watching them.
the community would reject harmful decisions and/or miners would do too.

they cant force people to upgrade the software. it is always a free choice of everyone who is using bitcoin.
if they would introduce "bitcoin version 1.5 with an unlimited bitcoin supply", i and 99,99% of all bitcoiners would answer:

"SCREW YOU - we will use version 1.4!"

[ninjag]

the core devs could be bought but that is highly unlikely if you look at their personalities 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

Thanks, LiteCoinGuy.

I agree with you there, and know the code is all viewable and open-source, but what I mean is, could these developers not be paid off to just make an utterly stupid program revision and destroy the system? They can choose to hardfork the block chain, and adjust block size, so why couldn't they be bought to do something really detrimental, as well?

I think this is unlikely. I use and love Bitcoin, but this is basically the one thing I am not quite sure about.

as i said: they cant do something which harms the whole bitcoin-world because there are too many eyes watching them.
the community would reject harmful decisions and/or miners would do too.

they cant force people to upgrade the software. it is always a free choice of everyone who is using bitcoin.

Ah, okay. Remember, you are dealing with a beginner, here. That actually makes sense to me now, though. The miners also stand to lose a lot if a shitty line of code is introduced.

Plus, the users themselves could reject any potentially detrimental changes to the protocol.

Thank you for answering, man. Much obliged.