Incentivizing developpers to work on Classic

[helloworld]

It's apparent that Core is still dominant because it has "first movers" advantage, it has funds and/or connections to spread propaganda and that it controls the oldest communication channels.

I strongly believe that this could be countered by creating a transparent Bitcoin fund with the goal of distributing BTC among the developers who contributed to Classic on a yearly basis.

For this to be successful, it needs the participation of about 6 trusted members of the Bitcoin community and the support of users and businesses who want Satoshi's vision to be preserved.

I wonder what you think about this idea.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's apparent that Core is still dominant because it has "first movers" advantage, it has funds and/or connections to spread propaganda and that it controls the oldest communication channels.

I strongly believe that this could be countered by creating a transparent Bitcoin fund with the goal of distributing BTC among the developers who contributed to Classic on a yearly basis.

For this to be successful, it needs the participation of about 6 trusted members of the Bitcoin community and the support of users and businesses who want Satoshi's vision to be preserved.

I wonder what you think about this idea.

Since it's summer, instead - I would suggest joining programming oriented forums and socializing. A lot of them will get involved with Bitcoin and help as it looks good on their resume

[inBitweTrust]

The problem with this plan is most of the talented developers aren't interested in working on Classic and would be tough to persuade specifically because the implementations roadmap doesn't make much technical sense. Right now classic has developers like Peter Rizun, while clearly has a decent background in math , has an extremely superficial background in programming as evidenced by this last embarrassing exchange between him and Greg- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 12648.html where he was unaware of rudimentary concepts.

I do support your endeavors and efforts however, but would be highly skeptical of using any new code from BU or Classic at this time.

[helloworld]

The problem with this plan is most of the talented developers aren't interested in working on Classic and would be tough to persuade specifically because the implementations roadmap doesn't make much technical sense. Right now classic has developers like Peter Rizun, while clearly has a decent background in math , has an extremely superficial background in programming as evidenced by this last embarrassing exchange between him and Greg- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 12648.html where he was unaware of rudimentary concepts.

I do support your endeavors and efforts however, but would be highly skeptical of using any new code from BU or Classic at this time.

What doesn't make sense?

Have you read the core roadmap which is based on vaporware and Gregonomics?

Seriously, I cannot believe that people are really this ignorant.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The problem with this plan is most of the talented developers aren't interested in working on Classic and would be tough to persuade specifically because the implementations roadmap doesn't make much technical sense. Right now classic has developers like Peter Rizun, while clearly has a decent background in math , has an extremely superficial background in programming as evidenced by this last embarrassing exchange between him and Greg- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 12648.html where he was unaware of rudimentary concepts.

I do support your endeavors and efforts however, but would be highly skeptical of using any new code from BU or Classic at this time.

Are you sure about that because I am taking advice from Cornell students! I trust a vast group of highly intelligent students over x amount of paid employees. Employee's of whom discredited Bitcoin from the beginning until they realized it could be exploited for profit.

Remember: Cornell advised Bitcoin to upgrade to at least 3mb

The Guardian reported on Bitcoin's problems with "Core"

Reuters reported on Bitcoin's governance problems with "Core"

I will support whichever implementation provides a safe path for the future which is currently Bitcoin Classic. Coinbase, the US's largest Bitcoin Exchange - supports Classic amongst many other reputable companies. They need to make the right choices because they hold 1B worth of customers Bitcoin.

You're saying we're all lying??

[inBitweTrust]

I am merely suggesting that I look forward to the day when other implementations have the same depth and quantity of quality devs that Core does. Stop making this about cheerleading for a side or team guys , we are all in this together and care about the health of the ecosystem , and that means that having multiple well maintained repositories is needed.

P.S... Yes, as I cited above with evidence , there is a clear distinction between development , testing , and expertise between Core and all other implementations. Hopefully development won't be so lopsided in the future. Unfortunately, Classic's scaling road map doesn't make sense technically or economically to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want other competing implementations to exist. I merely want their quality to improve.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I am merely suggesting that I look forward to the day when other implementations have the same depth and quantity of quality devs that Core does. Stop making this about cheerleading for a side or team guys , we are all in this together and care about the health of the ecosystem , and that means that having multiple well maintained repositories is needed.

P.S... Yes, as I cited above with evidence , there is a clear distinction between development , testing , and expertise between Core and all other implementations. Hopefully development won't be so lopsided in the future. Unfortunately, Classic's scaling road map doesn't make sense technically or economically to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want other competing implementations to exist. I merely want their quality to improve.

This has nothing to do with competing implementations, this has to do with individuals hi-jacking Bitcoin for their own financial benefit. You can't manipulate and pay people of an open-source project to further your agenda.

[inBitweTrust]

I am merely suggesting that I look forward to the day when other implementations have the same depth and quantity of quality devs that Core does. Stop making this about cheerleading for a side or team guys , we are all in this together and care about the health of the ecosystem , and that means that having multiple well maintained repositories is needed.

P.S... Yes, as I cited above with evidence , there is a clear distinction between development , testing , and expertise between Core and all other implementations. Hopefully development won't be so lopsided in the future. Unfortunately, Classic's scaling road map doesn't make sense technically or economically to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want other competing implementations to exist. I merely want their quality to improve.

This has nothing to do with competing implementations, this has to do with individuals hi-jacking Bitcoin for their own financial benefit. You can't manipulate and pay people of an open-source project to further your agenda.

What you are suggesting is absurd as we all voluntarily make a decision to use Core or not. There are also no guns being held to the miners heads either . They are willingly choosing to run core based upon mutual self interest and because their interest's are aligned with the core developers.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I am merely suggesting that I look forward to the day when other implementations have the same depth and quantity of quality devs that Core does. Stop making this about cheerleading for a side or team guys , we are all in this together and care about the health of the ecosystem , and that means that having multiple well maintained repositories is needed.

P.S... Yes, as I cited above with evidence , there is a clear distinction between development , testing , and expertise between Core and all other implementations. Hopefully development won't be so lopsided in the future. Unfortunately, Classic's scaling road map doesn't make sense technically or economically to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want other competing implementations to exist. I merely want their quality to improve.

This has nothing to do with competing implementations, this has to do with individuals hi-jacking Bitcoin for their own financial benefit. You can't manipulate and pay people of an open-source project to further your agenda.

What you are suggesting is absurd as we all voluntarily make a decision to use Core or not. There are also no guns being held to the miners heads either . They are willingly choosing to run core based upon mutual self interest and because their interest's are aligned with the core developers.

No, corrupt individuals used a position of power to obtain control of Bitcoin Core. In the process, they hurt many people including prominent developers.

The most powerful miners from China are currently on Core's side because they benefit from the extortion. Core is extorting fees from Bitcoin users. If they don't pay the fee, their transaction is delayed. This pattern arose when Blockstream came on the scene.

It is absurd that you think this will last because it won't. You under-estimate the power of people.

[helloworld]

I am merely suggesting that I look forward to the day when other implementations have the same depth and quantity of quality devs that Core does. Stop making this about cheerleading for a side or team guys , we are all in this together and care about the health of the ecosystem , and that means that having multiple well maintained repositories is needed.

P.S... Yes, as I cited above with evidence , there is a clear distinction between development , testing , and expertise between Core and all other implementations. Hopefully development won't be so lopsided in the future. Unfortunately, Classic's scaling road map doesn't make sense technically or economically to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want other competing implementations to exist. I merely want their quality to improve.

The usual appeal to authority nonsense.

Core is nothing extraordinary, they have no quality advantage and quantity can be overcome too. This is open source software.

Why do you feel that the Classic roadmap doesn't make sense?

The "Because Borgstream told me" argument is not valid.

[helloworld]

There are also no guns being held to the miners heads either . They are willingly choosing to run core based upon mutual self interest and because their interest's are aligned with the core developers.

No guns, but misinformation, FUD and lies spread on communication channels and media outlets.