RE: what's my role in the core team:  I try to do whatever needs to get done, that isn't getting done.  Today I'm cross-compiling the 0.8 release and testing it on Windows, trying to track down a crash-at-exit issue and an excessive-memory-use issue that seems to only happen on Windows.

When I'm not doing nitty-gritty things like that, I try to work on big, what-is-most-likely-to-make-Bitcoin-succeed problems.

RE: why pay me a salary?  "why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free?"

I told myself (and my wife) a couple of years ago that I wasn't going to sink dollars into Bitcoin-- that I'd sink time into it, and that I'd EARN bitcoins by starting a bitcoin-related startup.

Well, there's enough core development work to keep me busy full time. I wasn't very happy doing core development work AND trying to make ClearCoin happen; I'm happier when I can concentrate on one thing.  Besides, having my own startup introduces potential conflicts of interest (ClearCoin sparked conspiracy theories about why I push for multisig transactions so hard).

RE: what if I get hit by a bus?

Then the other core developers will carry on without me. I'm not indispensable.

RE: Why should you join the Foundation?  What is in it for you, personally?

That is a hard question, because you can "free ride" -- if we're successful making Bitcoin successful, everybody will benefit. Personally, I don't respect people with that kind of "I'm not going to do it because I'm sure somebody else will" attitude, and I think in the long run the people who take the risks and roll up their sleeves and do the work needed tend to win in the end.

Really, the main benefit of joining the Foundation is it is an organization full of people who are rolling up their sleeves and doing the work. If you're smart, you'll realize that networking with those types of people is to your long-term benefit.

+1 but...

And there is a big BUT, we have to have some incentives system in place for the main developers, the ones that really do the hard work like Gavin and team, because if we don't we're being at risk of having the highest bidders push changes over time and corrupt the system from within, always in their own interest.

I'm not part of the Foundation, but seeing how things are taking course lately I'm thinking seriously about paying my subscription and support the developers for their awesome work. Bitcoin has just started to gain traction but allot has to be done to gain mainstream adoption, and we will surely not be there real soon if we're scattered all around. I remember someone's comment from these forums: voluntarily joining forces is how free market gets things done, and is good.


Edit: I just signed up for a year, hope I support the devs and learn something useful too.

Ohhh and you know how long thing would take if he wasn't getting paid... I am just saying there like 10 core developers between them and there time, they couldn't handle the software. I just think that one person handling the lead on such a revolutionary idea is bad news. Remember I want to run a full node, currently there is no other option. I think this is classic monopoly and if Gavin was unable to do his job tomorrow, bitcoin would greatly stuffer, we need more lead developers, maybe we can get 3 people on board I feel little bit better. In reality one person that relied on this heavy in this much a decentralized way, is insanity!

Also I never talked about bounties, actually I would disagree with a bounties model, that code is usually rushed and very buggy. I think people that take on the job of bitcoin-qt want to give something back. Hey I knew C++ and python at the level I know other languages I would be right there helping sadly I can't.

Mozilla, makes a browser... i don't see any parallel and I think your miss understood why I disagree with Gavin getting paid. I feel like it is giving too much power to on person, which it is cause no ONE has said an actual person's name IF Gavin was unable to do bitcoins anymore.

In case of the bus scenario: Let the core team decide among them and elect one to take his job! Otherwise we'll have some weird dynasty up there.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill (not the first time either). There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head who could lead the devs quite happily ... and if it really comes down to it I imagine Satoshi would reappear, the same, though changed.

I guess legit concerns I should just keep to myself... Sorry let me go and talk about how great the foundation is... Really then you insult my intelligences with this statement.


I am not losing sleep, but this should be something that is talked about. I think most of the dev team is very able to pick up the program today. I think more of the Gavin is a strong entity in the bitcoin world and being the lead developer of the official bitcoin and only full node gives him a lot of power.


I think a lot of people are misunderstood, if a couple people are saying Gavin is not an expendable person on the bitcoin project, then that means this experiment was a fail. Soon we will either have to have a spilt of the official bitcoin application or a new full node, to defeat this monopoly.

I joined, too.

Short and sweet answer, NO.

Gavin's bank account says thank you

The problem with decentralization and extreme resiliency is that it is EXPENSIVE. It is EXPENSIVE to educate a developer into knowing the codebase and working on it fulltime. It is EXPENSIVE to build a completely separate node software when it can be concentrated into one project. It is EXPENSIVE to make bitcoin totally resilient against any governmental attacks, any privacy-breaking attempt, any bugs in the system.

Security is expensive. Think of all the locks, the policemen, the soldiers, military R&D, mining rigs, and all the bank guards in the world. Now think of the money that could be spent on something more useful and relevant to our lives if everyone is a goodyshoes.

So you want resiliency and security from "gavin dies, we're screwed"? Well, are you willing to pay for the cost or providing said resiliency and security? It seems that you are bent on decentralization, resiliency, and security at any cost.

There are no such things as a free lunch.