@cypherdoc
@rocks
Not being a coder myself I can't speak to the Core devs' competence on coding, though I did see Gmax chide XT over its recent issue, saying supporters of bigger blocks seem unable to release working code. I would love to see a candid assessment of their abilities in general, though I get a sense other coders are reluctant to do that for whatever reason because I hardly ever see it. I only recall Rusty Russell mentioned as an exceptionally talented coder.
The issue relates to where participation in Bitcoin development is coming from and how that compares to other open source projects, rather than competency.
In almost every large scale open source effort I've seen development is largely user led, and companies who rely on the project allocate developer resources to the project to move it forward and ensure alignment. By having users lead development, development follows the interests and needs of the user base.
The issue we are seeing today is the blockstream development team is not taking Bitcoin in a direction the user base wants. But the problem is that user base is not contributing towards development, this creates a vacuum that is filled by Greg and team.
If we want to see a different direction, then Bitcoin entities need to step up and start to take over development and contribute much than they have been. Imagine if miners such as KnC took a lead just went ahead and implemented IBLT and other scaling techniques, instead of just waiting for blockstream to do so, we'd actually see movement on scaling for the first time in years.
We've been complaining that blockstream has taken over and forcing their way, but that is symptom. The problem and root cause is the lack of merchant and miner contributions in code.
On a side note, I think this is why Greg and team are taking such an aggressive and condescending attitude. Doing so scares others from getting involved, their behavior is designed to discourage others from participating, which in effect makes the system more reliant on them.
