<p>Some posts that genjix might have referred to:</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg722833#msg722833" rel="nofollow">by theymos</a>:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this.
  They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should
  be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the
  proposals.</p>
  
  <p>I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the
  Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and
  have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the
  end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds,
  say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new
  restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by
  then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there
  aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be
  shelved for a while.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723938#msg723938" rel="nofollow">by Technomage</a></strong>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The bottom line is that non-technical people should have no say in an
  issue that is purely technical. This is technocratic democracy and
  it's simply the best way. All technical people should be invited to
  the discussion and then they can vote amongst themselves, simple as
  that. Then the results are made public and the miners will upgrade
  based on that, if the team decided to go forward with either BIP.
  There should of course be a vote for "neither".</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T13:08:14.180Z
2012-01-31T13:26:11.680Z
2012-01-31T13:26:11.680Z
ripper234
<p>You misunderstand what the developers are saying. They are not saying that they object to pubic scrutiny and participation. They are saying that being a user of Bitcoin does not somehow specially qualify you to comment on the design or implementation of the Bitcoin system.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T08:42:55.047Z
Well, either way, *I* for one think that anyone can comment on whatever they want... Anyway, this better fits as a comment, because it doesn't really answer the question.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T08:44:50.403Z
It answers the question -- nobody on the core team has said they object to public scrutiny and participation. And yes, anyone can comment on whatever they want, no developer has said that "mere users" should be prohibited from commenting. They just find that it's generally a waste of time to read the comments. Good comments will percolate up by themselves into coherent proposals.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T08:49:22.353Z
The rephrase the question - who does @genjix refer to in his multiple quotes?  Another quote: `Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel like you as users should trust their judgement` http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T08:58:01.980Z
He only says "some developers" or "other developers". But he may be referring to the fact that miners vote on the P2SH proposal. Why don't you ask him what he means? Anyone else would have to guess.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T09:46:41.260Z
I suspect that genjix might be deliberately trying not to name them in order "not to bad mouth specific people", which I understand. However, if his posts and comments are based on something that is public knowledge (forum posts, emails in the dev group), then someone else could point out what this is based on. The reason I think it's important is because IMO every public opinion made by various "important bitcoin people" testifies to the character of those people, and absolute transparency is essential.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T09:48:44.503Z
Bitcoin is based on trust ... not everone reads every commits or every forum post. People support or object to proposals (e.g. BIP 16/17, and others) based not only on the content of the proposals, but also on the character of the proposers. Consider for example SolidCoin - I was quite interested in it until I saw a log of an IRC chat between Gavin & CoinHunter, where CoinHunter showed absolute disrespect and lack of "seriousness". So even without understanding all the protocol details, I can predict that SolidCoin won't take off simply because of its champions.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T09:50:40.910Z
To conclude this rant - I simply think that facts are important, and should be public, including opinions that person X or Y publicly made about topic Z.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T08:18:52.293Z
2012-01-31T08:18:52.293Z
David Schwartz
<p>Genjix wrote about this in two recent posts. Here's <a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/cathartic-progress/" rel="nofollow">one</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Some developers argue that with the issues being highly complex, that
  users have no say in the system’s core development</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And <a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/" rel="nofollow">the other</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel
  like you as users should trust their judgement</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Are there public expressions of some core developers that object to public scrutiny and participation in the decision-making process? Who, of the core team, has issued such opinions?</p>

<development><bitcoin-core>
Which Bitcoin developers are referred to as saying that "users have no say in the system's core development"
ripper234
# Which Bitcoin developers are referred to as saying that "users have no say in the system's core development"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-31)

Genjix wrote about this in two recent posts. Here's [one](http://bitcoinmedia.com/cathartic-progress/).

> Some developers argue that with the issues being highly complex, that
> users have no say in the system’s core development

And [the other](http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/):

> Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel
> like you as users should trust their judgement

Are there public expressions of some core developers that object to public scrutiny and participation in the decision-making process? Who, of the core team, has issued such opinions?

**Tags:** development, bitcoin-core


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2012-01-31. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Some posts that genjix might have referred to:

**[by theymos](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg722833#msg722833):**

> Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this.
> They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should
> be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the
> proposals.
>
> I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the
> Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and
> have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the
> end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds,
> say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new
> restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by
> then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there
> aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be
> shelved for a while.

**[by Technomage](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723938#msg723938)**:

> The bottom line is that non-technical people should have no say in an
> issue that is purely technical. This is technocratic democracy and
> it's simply the best way. All technical people should be invited to
> the discussion and then they can vote amongst themselves, simple as
> that. Then the results are made public and the miners will upgrade
> based on that, if the team decided to go forward with either BIP.
> There should of course be a vote for "neither".


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-01-31. Score: 3

You misunderstand what the developers are saying. They are not saying that they object to pubic scrutiny and participation. They are saying that being a user of Bitcoin does not somehow specially qualify you to comment on the design or implementation of the Bitcoin system.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well, either way, *I* for one think that anyone can comment on whatever they want... Anyway, this better fits as a comment, because it doesn't really answer the question.  
> **username_1**: It answers the question -- nobody on the core team has said they object to public scrutiny and participation. And yes, anyone can comment on whatever they want, no developer has said that "mere users" should be prohibited from commenting. They just find that it's generally a waste of time to read the comments. Good comments will percolate up by themselves into coherent proposals.  
> **username_0**: The rephrase the question - who does @genjix refer to in his multiple quotes?  Another quote: `Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel like you as users should trust their judgement` http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/  
> **username_1**: He only says "some developers" or "other developers". But he may be referring to the fact that miners vote on the P2SH proposal. Why don't you ask him what he means? Anyone else would have to guess.  
> **username_0**: I suspect that genjix might be deliberately trying not to name them in order "not to bad mouth specific people", which I understand. However, if his posts and comments are based on something that is public knowledge (forum posts, emails in the dev group), then someone else could point out what this is based on. The reason I think it's important is because IMO every public opinion made by various "important bitcoin people" testifies to the character of those people, and absolute transparency is essential.  
> **username_0**: Bitcoin is based on trust ... not everone reads every commits or every forum post. People support or object to proposals (e.g. BIP 16/17, and others) based not only on the content of the proposals, but also on the character of the proposers. Consider for example SolidCoin - I was quite interested in it until I saw a log of an IRC chat between Gavin & CoinHunter, where CoinHunter showed absolute disrespect and lack of "seriousness". So even without understanding all the protocol details, I can predict that SolidCoin won't take off simply because of its champions.  
> **username_0**: To conclude this rant - I simply think that facts are important, and should be public, including opinions that person X or Y publicly made about topic Z.  

---

