Quote from: justusranvier on November 16, 2013, 04:33:38 AM

Quote from: jedunnigan on November 16, 2013, 04:21:53 AM

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I would not donate to an effort led by Gavin. I do not believe that he has the mindset to lead a unique and important effort such as Bitcoin. That is not to say I don't think he's a good guy or lacks skill or whatever. He's just not the right guy for the job in this case.

The reason I say this is that the first thing out of his mouth at the SJ 2013 'state of bitcoin' presentation was the standard faire 'we must rapidly innovate or be left behind' sentiment that permeates the thinking in the valley.

I would not say that this is necessarily true or false in the case of Bitcoin, but it certainly needs to be carefully considered and not taken as a standard and obvious given as might be the case with lesser software systems.

My personal feeling is that Bitcoin had a huge potential just as it was/is, and by far the most critical focus should be to make it rock solid and defensible against all potential attacks even if we have yet to witness them. This is very much the opposite of adding various bells and whistles.

Worse yet, my interpretation of the direction of the project is that the 'defense' is to build in and/or retain constructs necessary to comply with the interests of more powerful entities. I am certain that this acquiescent defense will be a mistake in direction and will end in failure. The shame of it would be that Bitcoin probably has the basic architecture to survive in a very hostile environment. Barely. Giving up a position of strength is a bad move in my opinion.