Bitcoin development serves those holding bitcoin

This post is offered in response to a Bitcoin Magazine article entitled Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Core Is Not Listening to Its Customers, in particular the following quote by Mr. Andresen.

The root of my issue with [Bitcoin] Core is I just think that they’re not listening to their customers. I don’t think that they’ve been listening to the miners, and I don’t think that they’ve been listening to the people that do the bulk of the transactions on the network.

Who is the customer of a software system that implements a money? It is of course the person that owns the money.

This person can choose to spend money on services like a bank (e.g. Coinbase) or transaction processing (miners), or he/she can simply save. The money is not the property of these businesses and therefore the software system that implements the money does not serve them. This is a critical distinction when considering the impact of changes to the money — the motivation for the quote.

When a money is modified without universal consent, money is stolen. Money is property and it can’t be stolen from you unless it’s your property. The 1913 U.S. Federal Reserve Note was a gold obligation. The money was hard-forked in 1933, resulting in catastrophic losses for its holders. Except to the extent that they held these notes in their own account, banks and mints were not robbed by this act, and generally thrived.

note

“REDEEMABLE IN GOLD ON DEMAND”

In the case of actual consensus (universal agreement) all owners of the property consent to the change, in which case it is an increase in value to everyone. Bitcoin gives every person their own say in the money. The interests of services, that are paid by coin-holders, are not only irrelevant (it’s not their money) but often in conflict with the interest of their customers.

8 comments

  1. > “This person can choose to spend money on services like a bank (e.g. Coinbase) or transaction processing (miners), or he/she can simply save”

    If you artificially keep the block small, the users can’t do anything about you said, so while tecnically you are not stealing from them, you are blocking their funds indefinitely, not much of a difference

    Like

    1. It’s not clear to me who “you” refers to in this comment. The coin-holders (“users”) have the option to resolve the issue on their own — consensus. The point of a consensus system is to keep this decision in their hands.

      Like

  2. luke-jrLuke Dashjr – Bitcoin Expert -8 points 14 hours ago
    Good article, and correct on its conclusions, but technically my customers are the people who pay me to do development.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Red pill dude!

        Read it like it’s written and stop curve fitting as the quote goes full 180 degree frontal against your article!

        Like

    1. [replying here because for some reason WP can’t handle full threading]

      > Red pill dude!
      > Read it like it’s written and stop curve fitting as the quote goes full 180 degree frontal against your article!

      Gavin calls those who, “do the bulk of the transactions on the network,” Bitcoin Core’s customers. He either speaking metaphorically, or he is not. If he is not, he doesn’t understand what a customer is. I give him more credit than that.

      But if I was mistaken, and he was referring to literal customers, then his statement is pointless. If developers of Bitcoin Core, paid by these organizations, are not listening to their employers, it is clearly a problem between them. I would recommend the companies find new employees. You may get paid to develop for Bitcoin Core, and I’m sure you listen to your customer(s). But I don’t think Gavin was talking about a contract dispute.

      If he is speaking metaphorically then his idea of customer is clearly not based on who is paying. At the same time, his metaphor is deceptive. It implies that the handful of payment processors, web wallet services and large miners, are the bulk of Core’s “customers” because they “do the bulk of the transactions”. The point of this post is to call out the fallacy of this metaphor. I didn’t think I had to spell it out, but obviously it’s not something I retrofitted to the discussion.

      Which pill is the red one? It’s such a crappy metaphor I can never remember which one keeps me in the battery and which one lets me out.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s