Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5ynb-0003es-LQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:05:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitcoins.info designates 70.90.2.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.90.2.18; envelope-from=milly@bitcoins.info; helo=mail.help.org; Received: from mail.help.org ([70.90.2.18]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5ynY-0006MX-5x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:05:47 +0000 Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:05:35 -0400 Message-ID: <55843DD2.3080006@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:05:38 -0400 From: Milly Bitcoin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5ynY-0006MX-5x Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:05:47 -0000 >- Did you accept payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks? Do you consider that something appropriate to publicly disclose if so? Do you consider that user rights should come above or below company interests in Bitcoin? FWIW on pondering that last question "should user rights come above or below company interests" I think my view of the guiding principle is starkly clear to me: that user rights should be the primary thing to optimise for. Businesses are providing service to users, their interests are secondary in so far as if they are enabled to provide better service thats good. Bitcoin is a user p2p currency, with a social contract and a strong user ethos. Importing and forcing company interests would likely be the start of a slippery slope towards an end to Bitcoin. I always thought is was the exact opposite. I thought it was expected that the only incentive for developers (other than increasing the value of coins they hold) is to lobby for changes that will benefit the companies that fund them. That is the only way you are going to get more full time developers on board. It focuses their efforts on products and services people want rather than some sort philosophical agenda that may be unrealistic. The notion that large numbers of volunteers will do all this work at little or no pay to improve user experience is not a realistic long term plan. I also think it is incorrect to assume some kind of "social contract" and "strong user ethos." While many early users are like that I think most potential users of Bitcoin don't think that way. Russ