The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core

The discourse surrounding the privatization of Bitcoin Core development highlights several intricate issues tied to community interaction, contributor experience, and potential solutions to emerging challenges. The core argument rests on finding a balance between openness and the need for a controlled, productive environment conducive to development. The ease and natural inclination towards in-person or office work are identified as significant motivators behind the push for privatization, not necessarily the fear of public backlash or "brigade" scenarios. However, the presence of such fears cannot be dismissed entirely, as they do have a tangible impact on the willingness of external developers to contribute more significantly to the project. This chilling effect is exacerbated by instances when non-technical individuals with strong political views impact discussions, creating a stressful and sometimes discouraging atmosphere for contributors.

A notable challenge in the existing setup is the perception of GitHub as an overly open forum, which inadvertently invites participation without a clear delineation between casual observers and serious contributors. This situation could potentially be mitigated by transitioning to platforms like GitLab or Codeberg, or implementing mechanisms that require users to register and wait before posting, thereby establishing a clearer boundary between contributors and bystanders. Such measures could deter non-constructive participation while avoiding heavy-handed solutions like banning, which carry their own set of negative implications and visibility issues.

Moreover, there's recognition that completely restricting access to the repository might not be beneficial, as it could hinder the ability to share and discuss developments openly. Solutions that involve technical barriers to entry, such as producing a custom mining share, or social barriers, like requiring personal invitations, are considered. However, these approaches may not be necessary and could lead to accusations of censorship and centralization, which would counter the foundational ethos of Bitcoin Core.

In essence, the dialogue encapsulates a broader conversation about how best to evolve Bitcoin Core's development process in a way that nurtures contribution and collaboration while protecting the integrity of the project and its developers from counterproductive interference. The pursuit of a middle ground—whereby contributions are encouraged yet managed through subtle controls—emerges as a pivotal theme in ensuring the continued success and innovation within the Bitcoin Core ecosystem.