Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

 

[go1111111]

"The Core devs are not 'Bitcoin wizards'; they are 'Bitcoin code monkeys,' and they are eminently replaceable."

As a professional software dev, I think the Core devs are a bit harder to replace than many of their detractors think. Greg's economic understanding is weak, but I'd guess his tech skills are in the top 0.1% of people who work on software in technical roles. Pieter also seems quite good -- at least top 1%.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

@go1111111 I was actually just coming to post this here because I realized the intent behind my comment might be misinterpreted.


So yeah, no offense intended to any of you code monkeys. Some of my best friends are code monkeys.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Adam Back throwing some shade BU's way:


Nice response by /u/ViaBTC:

 

[go1111111]

So there are two claims:

(1) the scope of the self proclaimed bitcoin wizards' expertise is limited.

I fully agree with this (in fact, I wrote an article about it a while back).

(2) The Core developers are not even that good within their limited expertise as code monkeys.

I think BU folks often get a bit carried away with this. It seems like because they dislike Core so much, they'll agree with anything bad said about them. Greg is one of the smartest technical people I've seen. Something about computer science that laymen may not appreciate is that the best developers are often so much better than mediocre developers that one star developer could create something far better than 50 mediocre ones working together.

 

[freetrader]

@go1111111 : Agree with your points, but want to add that despite Adam's posturing about how good the Core devs and their process are, the code is still a horrid mess, largely grown under "Core" auspices, with inadequate tests and poorly documented.
A professional developer's hairs *should* stand up when seeing those things, as someone who was a Bitcoin user first and foremost and only recently looked at the code, I can tell you it hasn't really inspired my confidence. The fact that there are other clients (btcd etc) already probably does more toward letting me keep a little faith in this system

Those who've worked on legacy code know that it's difficult to clean up, but an experienced PM would recognize that piling on more cruft is much worse. Unless they don't see themselves as sticking around long enough to care.

P.S. @Roger_Murdock : "code monkeys" is a clear pejorative term, despite your best intentions
It bases on a belief (often found in those who have never tried to program a real application) that developers don't need to put much independent thought into their work or require a large base of knowledge, that it's a rote job and as long as the specifications/design are good enough, anyone who's read a Teach Yourself Programming in 21 days can do a good job. A popular mindset during the onset of globalization and certainly welcomed by those who lined their pocketbooks outsourcing.

 

[sickpig]

For what is worth I've updated the Bitcoin Unlimited Ubuntu repositories:

- adding yakkety support to both the stable and nightly repo
- updating the nigthly repo adding new binaries built from github 0.12.1bu commit f3314b6

If you want you could give it a try just follow these simple steps (stable repo):

sudo apt-get install software-properties-common
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:bitcoin-unlimited/bu-ppa
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install bitcoind bitcoin-qt

nightly repo:

sudo apt-get install software-properties-common
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:bitcoin-unlimited/bu-ppa-nigthly
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install bitcoind bitcoin-qt

announce on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5dfa35/bitcoin_unlimited_repository_updated/

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Greg is one of the smartest technical people I've seen.

After I've seen him struggling very hard with log-plots I'm not so confident in his abilities anymore.

 

[AdrianX]

As a professional software dev, I think the Core devs are a bit harder to replace than many of their detractors think. Greg's economic understanding is weak, but I'd guess his tech skills are in the top 0.1% of people who work on software in technical roles. Pieter also seems quite good -- at least top 1%.

You may be correct but that's not a reason to allow those with week economic understanding to dictate economic policy for a value exchange protocol.

The truth of the matter is Core developers ability to develop software for the Bitcoin protocol is not what's under threat of loss they won't be expelled from Bitcoin.

What could be lost is their control over economic policy.

What we are seeing is a child throwing toys. Dictating economic policy and being a top developer are not exclusively the same thing. They can give up the one without compromising the other. Core developers by any other name are Bitcoin developers when they drop the will to control and dictate economic policy.

 

[Bagatell]

Strange bedfellows?

https://bitcoindevelopmentgrant.com/en/

 

[Peter R]

As a professional software dev, I think the Core devs are a bit harder to replace than many of their detractors think. Greg's economic understanding is weak, but I'd guess his tech skills are in the top 0.1% of people who work on software in technical roles. Pieter also seems quite good -- at least top 1%.

I don't disagree (and don't believe @Roger_Murdock does either). According to Wolfram Alpha, there are about 1,200,000 programmers/software engineers in the US, so let's say 3,000,000 in the entire world. If you place a current Bitcoin developer in the top 0.1%, that means there are still 3,000 people equally or better qualified.

I think the point the term "code monkey" was supposed to get across is that the devs are neither irreplaceable nor doing work that is that important. The real important stuff--the things that only 0.0001% of the population achieves in their lifetimes--was done by Satoshi Nakamoto. The computer science innovation behind the concept of Bitcoin (the white paper), and the implementation of that concept in the original Satoshi client (creating the network), were achieved in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The rest is really just maintenance and incremental improvements.

I think this is the point that Roger was trying to communicate--it doesn't take a "wizard" to maintain code or make incremental improvements to the technology.

 

[AdrianX]

@Bagatell I like the idea, but it doesn't carry ant weight. Anyone can endorse it and then do whatever they want, and cry foul if there endorsement is removed, at least that's my reaction when seeing Luke-jr's endorsement - He has been outright hostile to multiple Implementations and denied censorship on r/bitcoin .

I guess it's a basis on which to start a discussion so I'm glad to see it.

 

[Dusty]

Are you aware that transaction malleability fix is much needed by all kinds of features and services aside from lightning?

In fact, I'm curious to know which other features and services the malleability fix, enables?

I thought the only important one was the LN.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

I don't disagree (and don't believe @Roger_Murdock does either). According to Wolfram Alpha, there are about 1,200,000 programmers/software engineers in the US, so let's say 3,000,000 in the entire world. If you place a current Bitcoin developer in the top 0.1%, that means there are still 3,000 people equally or better qualified.

I think the point the term "code monkey" was supposed to get across is that the devs are neither irreplaceable nor doing work that is that important. The real important stuff--the things that only 0.0001% of the population achieves in their lifetimes--was done by Satoshi Nakamoto. The computer science innovation behind the concept of Bitcoin (the white paper), and the implementation of that concept in the original Satoshi client (creating the network), were achieved in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The rest is really just maintenance and incremental improvements.

I think this is the point that Roger was trying to communicate--it doesn't take a "wizard" to maintain code or make incremental improvements to the technology.

Thanks Peter! Yes, I agree with all that. And to be clear, I wasn't trying to denigrate anyone's technical prowess (which I'm not qualified to assess). And I certainly wasn't suggesting that development work is easy or unimportant! (I took a few programming courses in college and well, cout << "I sucked at it.") The real goal with that admittedly-provocative (and slightly obnoxious) statement was to get people to think about what the proper role of Bitcoin client developers is within the larger ecosystem. The developers are not the customers. Their job (again, assuming they want to remain relevant) is not to dictate functionality (or even really "negotiate" it); it is to figure out how to implement the features and functionality that the customers (i.e., "the market") want. I don't care how skilled you are as a developer -- if you insist on putting out one product (e.g., a high-friction "settlement network") when what the market really wants is something else entirely (e.g., a peer-to-peer electronic cash system), you will eventually find yourself out of a job.

 

[Norway]

I'm back in business!

After moving into the deep woods of Norway, I have finally managed to get good internet here! (Even the regular phone network almost doesn't work here).

The last weeks, I've been buying a 4WD pickup, moving all my stuff to my new home, killing mice, carrying wood&water, fixing pipes etc etc etc.

But now, I can continue to contribute and read here. I feel like I have a lot of homework on my plate. Cool homework. Get up to speed on this forum and BUIP's. Create a private/public key pair and start voting.

Nice to be back!

 

[awemany]

@Norway: I am so fucking jealous.

 

[albin]

@Norway

Just in time hopefully to see Magnus break the current streak of draws in New York!

 

[lunar]

Great write up of the Haipo Yang's, - ViaBTC AMA today on reddit.

You have to like this quote

“The battle between Bitcoin Unlimited and Segregated Witness is not a scaling battle, it’s actually a battle about Bitcoin’s future path. The Bitcoin Unlimited path advocates following Satoshi Nakamoto’s original development path, and guarantees Bitcoin retains its open and transparent ledger property, allowing more people to use Bitcoin, and allowing Bitcoin to become a globally used and accepted currency. The Segregated Witness path will turn Bitcoin into something that can only be used by a few, that is easily displaced by another cryptocurrency, with no way to realize its vision of becoming a fully anonymous system. It seems more likely that the BU path will help Bitcoin develop into a trillion dollar market, and Segregated Witness will cause Bitcoin to turn into something like Tor: limited to a few grey area use cases, and incapable of achieving mainstream acceptance.”

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/majority-miners-planning-shift-bitcoin-unlimited-says-viabtcs-founder/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/majority-miners-planning-shift-bitcoin-unlimited-says-viabtcs-founder/
don't forget to vote

 

[albin]

@lunar

Jeeeeezus, Haipo Yang hits the nail on the head!

I can't help but think that his views are indicative of the overwhelming silent majority in the Bitcoin community internationally. I.e. the sort of common-sense people whose immediate reaction to Peter Wuille's Stalling 2 segwit presentation was "why can't you hardfork to 2 MB, but now suddenly it's ok to have bigger blocks if you do this?", and to the most obvious question imaginable, he's caught blindsided with nothing say.

 

[MoonShot]

After I've seen him struggling very hard with log-plots I'm not so confident in his abilities anymore.

He appears to have a few strengths in cryptography and basic c++ coding. Apart from that its obvious the ego interferes with him listening to other people and learning anything new.