Are all contributions strictly composable? People can add bad code, or good
contributions can be a matter of priorities and design. It's not as if
software is the output of a linear function, like building the pyramids
brick by brick.

In what ways are "developers" accountable to "users"? In terms of the
system surely miners are a very special kind of users of the system. Most
users don't have the faintest idea about the network. How many people in
the world have a deep knowledge of bitcoin?

What Mike Gogulski was pointing out is that beliefs matter. I would put it
in different words, but I certainly support the idea that corporatism
should have no place in bitcoin land. Clearly people who have worked for
major US corporations are at least a little brainwashed.


On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@???> wrote:

> On Saturday, November 09, 2013 3:55:33 PM Benjamin Cordes wrote:
> > Is having conversations with the CIA a bad thing?
> > Is having a google developer as a core member of the bitcoin dev group a
> bad
> > thing?
> > Would having a self declared anarchist as a member of the bitcoin core
> dev
> > group a bad thing?
>
> No, why is it a bad thing for anyone to contribute? Or for anyone to talk
> to
> who they like? Everyone should be free to participate in Bitcoin how they
> want; the problem comes about when they purport to claim that their
> interests
> represent Bitcoin itself - regardless of what their interests are.
>
> I'm a monarchist and interested in Bitcoin to advance the tonal number
> system.
> But I don't claim that is *Bitcoin's* goal, as if using the technology
> inherently makes one a monarchist or tonal supporter.
>
> > Imagine the hypothetical scenario that some entity would hack bitcointalk
> > and reddit and would declare certain changes to Bitcoin in the name of
> the
> > developers.
>
> Developers shouldn't have any special authority. People need to understand
> that most fundamental changes require the consent of the users, not the
> developers.
>
> Luke
>