I should think that the suggestion that open-source efforts consist of some individuals who are more likely to shape the direction of the project than others is one of the more obvious and less contentious concepts. Saying 'the' is a relative statement which doesn't describe magnitude (and one that I continue to stand by.)
(Remembering that most of my contemplation are forward looking...) To comment on the magnitude of Mikes influence, I'll bet that it will be very high. He'll be seen as the 'good boy' of Bitcoin. Popular with the Bitcoin Foundation-centric types who are in it to get rich (which, I'm looking forward to myself) and trusted by the authoritarian types who will want methods of controlling the solution...and make laws, BTW...
I put forth my take on this stuff mostly because it is a natural reaction of readers to consider than anyone who is actually doing anything with Bitcoin must be doings something 'good'. Most people are going to go with an instinct if the option is to expend the effort otherwise necessary to develop a unique perspective. By calling out some of the concerns that I have I hope mainly to deaden this undesirable gut reaction on the part of readers. And I do believe that it has been somewhat effective, and I don't believe that it has been or will be 'incredibly counter-productive.' The more capable devs are not likely to unduly impacted by such petty things.
Like I say, you're missing the psychology of it: you saying he's important is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hell, it's nearly as self-fufilling as the way people are starting to call me a core developer now.
Incidentally,
this is the kind of thing when I say that many see his efforts at maddeningly, yet subtlety, wrong. Note how I've got nothing against X.509 technology and think it should be integrated into the OpenPGP WoT using whatever hacks are required, while Mike's taking the usual top-down approach. But that's the kind of thing where malice is indistinguishable from stupidity, so until you've got that smoking gun you look like a crank pushing that angle. (heh, I'm pushing my luck with gmaxwell's quote there!)
Mental note: at my meeting in Maryland next week suggest the idea of creating a sock puppet army of ostensibly pro-privacy cranks obsessed with Mike and Gavin. We could haze the junior agents by forcing them to write fan-fic about the relationship...
Good to see you throw your hat into the ring in the competition to come of with the 'best' conspiracy. Actually, the wild conspiracy about sock puppet armies was converted into a fact with the HB Gary Federal hack long before Snowden. Whether the strategy and the software (purchased with my tax dollars) to facilitate it is employed within the Bitcoin project, I have no idea. Certainly I would not rule it out, and sowing discontent and hard feelings within the dev community would probably have some utility. Or might be seen by some as having value.
Oh I can do better than that:
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03705.htmlA bit technical, but gmaxwell is criticizing my approach to stealth addresses and blockchain data query privacy on the grounds that I'm making life easier for an attacker, under certain assumptions. I justify it
elsewhere for nice simple-sounding but maybe fundamentally wrong reasons... just the sort of thing a NSA agent would do wouldn't they? Like I say, sometimes malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.