Where it gets complicated - protocols are kind of a meta-code. We can
debate higher properties of aspects of the network, which have nothing to
do with implementation. I could perhaps do some work is on the protocol
level. Whether those designs would be good or bad - I very much doubt that
these will raise much interest in the core developer group. The aspects I'm
most interested they will quite certainly not care about, or think they are
crazy. Even if things are implementable in code, say as an Alt-Coin, people
have to care about the features and use them. Many of the new schemes out
there don't make much sense, which is fine. I think bitcointalk is a
terribly ineffective means of structuring communications and projects.

Think bitcoin is always "neutral"? Think again =>
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@???> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:06:20 PM Benjamin Cordes wrote:
> > Are all contributions strictly composable?
>
> No.
>
> > 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.
>
> Bad code won't get accepted by peer review. Admittedly, there's a problem
> if
> you can't find peers willing to review your code. The answer to that is to
> get
> more people with common interests involved - or "trade" someone else with
> the
> same problem.
>
> > 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.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > How many people in the world have a deep knowledge of bitcoin?
>
> Less than 50.
>
> > 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.
>
> There is obviously has quite a bit of "corporate brainwashing", but it's
> only
> a problem if that affects merged code.
>
> Luke
>