The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core

The discussion initiated by Bryan Bishop revolves around the complexities and nuances of coercion within political and economic frameworks, drawing from both Rothbard's axiom of non-coercion and Marx's perspective on the monopoly of means of production. Bishop highlights the evolution of the concept of coercion over the last 150 years, suggesting that it is far from straightforward. He points out a perceived imbalance in expectations placed on Bitcoin core developers by users and stakeholders, referencing past incidents where developers turned to public charity for legal defense against lawsuits, notably the CSW cases. This situation underscores the contributions of not only high-profile developers but also those who contribute more subtly through code reviews, testing, language translations, and documentation improvements. The acknowledgment of these low-key contributors, celebrated in a Bitcoin Optech newsletter, demonstrates the breadth of community involvement in the development process.

Bishop further discusses the financial aspects of developing Bitcoin-compatible infrastructure, using the development of a full-node based on libbitcoinkernel as an example. He estimates the engineering cost for such a development to be between $2-5 million, comparing it to costs in specialized fields like aeronautics or banking. This comparison sheds light on the substantial resources required for blockchain technology development and the significant investment by entities like Blockstream in this area. The challenges faced by developers, including social media criticism and unsolicited feedback on their work, are acknowledged as part of the broader discourse on open-source project management and contributor engagement.

The email also touches upon the topic of moderation and governance within the Bitcoin developer community, particularly concerning the unilateral changes to moderation rules and the perceived disregard for the contributions of numerous developers over the years. Bishop expresses concern over the disenfranchisement of contributors not present at decision-making meetings and questions the push towards decentralization in the face of such governance issues. He shares his personal decision not to pursue legal action against certain individuals over disagreements in moderation practices, emphasizing the importance of goodwill and foresight in open-source collaboration.

Finally, Bishop mentions his plan to review Poinsot's BIP54 proposal, hinting at the potential positive outcomes of constructive engagement and collaboration in the open-source community. He critiques the "top-down" approaches to managing social issues within the project, advocating for a more organic, bottom-up process that respects the diverse cultures and practices of contributors worldwide. Bishop's reflections offer a nuanced view of the challenges and opportunities in managing large-scale open-source projects like Bitcoin, highlighting the importance of community, transparency, and inclusivity in fostering a healthy development ecosystem.