From: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYnq5sk=wdhqx5UysyS=fu7kRUrixOJC=QfoY5np1ATmA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1759 bytes --]
On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> *Disclose potential conflicts*
>
> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect
> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to employment or
> other projects they are involved in, and disclose those interests to other
> project members.
> 2. When in doubt, over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are
> important to address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when
> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group over
> another.
Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in good
faith, I don't think it's that simple.
A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and it's
frequently used as a slur or insult.
I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford board
meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure Toyota was
able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by labelling their
critics as "Ford maximalists".
Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the wrong
job.
And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who offer
products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in competition
if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success.
I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is that
anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential conflict of
interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin development.
I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction with
Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't trust that the
developers are working toward the unlimited success case, they can and
will revolt.
[-- Attachment #1.2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18729 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-15 1:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-15 0:02 Jeff Garzik
2015-10-15 0:17 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-15 0:40 ` odinn
2015-10-15 1:43 ` Justus Ranvier [this message]
2015-10-15 8:38 ` odinn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org \
--to=justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox