Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by brg444 3383 days ago
x-post of one of my reddit post. (disclaimer: I am employed by Blockstream)

It's helpful to evaluate the contribution of Blockstream developers to Bitcoin Core versus other non-Blockstream developers in the last year. Let's see

Greg Maxwell: 46

Jorge Timon: 17

Pieter Wuille: 163 (the only developer at Blockstream dedicated full time to Core development)

Mark Friedenbach: 0

Patrick Strateman: 31

Warren Togami: 6

Adam Back: 0

Greg Sanders: 32

Glenn Willen: 0

Total commits for listed Blockstream developers: 295

Wladimir Van Der Laan: 210

Marco Falke: 170

Corey Fields: 152

Jonas Schnelli: 87

Suhas Daftuar: 73

Alex Morcos: 65

fanquake: 56

Pavel Janik: 45

Total commits for listed non-Blockstream developers: 858

So about 35%. 15% if we remove Pieter, but I can confidently say everyone at Blockstream is hugely proud of his contributions and in no way shape or form are we interested in diminishing his accomplishment. From my perspective he has been the single most important contributor to Bitcoin development for many years now.

In short, this narrative is a huge disrespect to every other contributors building the software we all depend on. The obsession of certain people to lend power to specific individuals is simply an attempt to shut down their ideas by attacking their character.

--

I would add that most of the Core contributors working at Blockstream had been contributing before the company was founded and certainly did not "infiltrate the Bitcoin development team".

The previous lead developer had barely contributed anything before he quit out of his own volition after a series of failed attempt to politicize Bitcoin and force through a contentious hard fork. The last straw was of course when he was naively led to believe that notorious scam artist Craig Wright was Satoshi.

With regards to the "off-blockchain" solutions you refer to. Here's a couple of facts:

Fact 1: The Lightning Network was created by Bitcoin developers not involved with the Core project

Fact 2: No Core developer is involved in a business whose revenue model revolves around the success of the Lightning Network

Fact 3: There is very little profit to be made from operating the Lightning Network infrastructure/protocol.

Fact 4: The Lightning Network will happen regardless of the outcome of the current contention.

Fact 5: Bitcoin developers have no control over the consensus code being enforced by independent peers participating in the network. Bitcoin is a voluntary system.

1 comments

Quantifying commits does not correlate to who is controlling the architecture of a codebase. Someone can control the architecture with a single commit, provided that commit is large enough.
Burden of proof is on you. There isn't any magic pixie does here-- if it were the case someone would show it, but they can't.
I'm not arguing either side; I don't know enough to decide either way. I'm just pointing out a specious argument.

What I can say is within this thread that both sides have spewed either enough propaganda or perhaps truth or perhaps their truth or maybe alternate truth, see my point is, there is enough confusion in all this bickering that I'll never trust Bitcoin again.