I can only imagine that these devs slag each other off online and then meet up at conferences
You know that meme where two dogs are barking at each other with a glass door separating them, and then the owner opens the door 🤣🤣🤣
And they start looking at something interesting on the floor 🤣🤣
Bless them 🙏
What did everyone expect? Didn't we learn anything from shitcoins?
If you want something to be decentralized, do not create a foundation with more power, money, and influence than the total network times 1000. It's a systemic blackhole.
Would you prefer if private companies funded nostr development?
(I don't intend this question to carry a moral weight, but I am curious what other paths there might be)
I'm going to answer for anon: yes.
It's strange you mention moral weight, because moral weight is what private companies lack, which is why they are dollar-for-dollar less pathogenic to decentralization. In contrast to foundations/nonprofits, private companies are a dagger without a cloak. They can't plausibly deny self-interest while behaving self-interested.
This is a great description. And it definitely rings true. But oddly enough, I think the perception of these things in general society is that private enterprises are more pathogenic than non-profits.
Also, (though I may have already provided an answer to my own question here) I wonder why so much of nostr/bitcoin development has trended towards non-profits and foundations.
When we had @schmidty on earlier this week for the AMA, he mentioned that there had been a bit more private company funding of development earlier in Bitcoin's history. It doesn't seem to be very popular now. what's blocking it?
Bystander effects and free riding, which are functions of scale. But, at scale, it's (probably) relatively safe to have nonprofits augmenting other forms of participation.
imo Bitcoin can survive its nonprofits disappearing which limits their power and makes them less pathogenic and net good.
Oh, and, if an ecosystem is critically dependent on a centralized organization with explicitly artificial (nonprofit) incentives, how does one conclude it's good for decentralization? Because it removes the centralizing forces of profit? At best, you're trading one kind of bad for another and gambling on which is worse. At worst, it's marxist leftovers.
The best case study of an infrastructure technology nonprofit might be Tor which functions like any public good: way better than nothing, but not good enough for everyone to use it all the time.
Why bitcooners make fun of DAOs while simultaneously throwing sats at centralized “charity” is beyond me.
Like, everywhere else you get to weight your opinion on who should get the cash using those newfangled blockchain technologies, instead of blindly trusting a board of random plebs.
Voting with your wallet, what a crazy concept.
it reminded me of this article about Nostr Centralizing
On the one hand, I heard stories like these and the Seedsigner/opensats stuff but on the other hand, I generally like the stuff opensats gives money to. Maybe it's just the non-profits are icky?
a single organisation with a nine pleb board deciding who gets funded is decentralized tho right 🤣🤣
No hate, they can't do right for doing wrong bless them, as soon as you introduce humans, you introduce problems 😉
Existential risk is a bit much, i mean, consider how few people actually use nostr anyway, the threat it is just going out with a whimper.
people leave because it's like an echo chamber and, more recently, it's just devs and bitcoiners flame-warring over bip110 and on-chain zaps.