Sponsoring of open source projects is a problem that bitcoin aims to solve. That and many others. The electronic cash bitcoin not the currency bitcoin. The owners of the project will be able to construct an electronic company, and any value that a user gives, will be shared to the shareholders, in line of the shares any shareholder has to the project, i.e. how much he has contributed. A user wants a new feature or a fix of a bug? He gives coins to the open source company, and they will implement it. This will give incentive for programmers to increase the quality of the code, better documentation etc.
Besides the fact that existing systems work fine for this, the idea that users pay for a fix or feature is ludicrious.
Users are terrible project managers. They report things as bugs that aren't bugs, they request features that don't improve the product, they in general have a low hitrate in terms of providing successful direction for a project.
Setting up a system where users pay for a _specific_ thing to happen is just asking for trouble.
Users paying for development they already find useful, or for concepts that they believe have promise - that's the way to do it.
Yeah, that's all true, that users sometimes think of something as useful and it is not. Nothing to be done about it, except education. But let's say some users want of an open source program to integrate some graphs somewhere. They go to a social media and they ask the users. "How many find useful these graphs?" The users hit like to the feature, and they immediately transfer a small value to the owners of the project. In case the sum of all the values of all the users is enough, the owners of the project may go forward, accept the funds and allocate resources to implement this feature.
Well if a company wants to give a large sum of money to an open source project for a feature, say a hundred dollars, or a thousand then it is the same. Electronic cash, i.e. bitcoin work better than the traditional ways of payment when there is a necessity for crowdfunding a little bit of money less than a penny, a 1/10 of a penny or 1/100, or 1/1000, from thousands of users. The reason bitcoin works better in that case, is because bitcoin is absolutely automated while in traditional payment systems a human is required to oversee the payments in case there is a fraud somewhere. That means a human is required to be paid, and humans are expensive to employ. That increases the cost of every transaction, as well as increases the minimal amount of the transferable value.
The electronic money that are known now as bitcoin, took a different turn from the white paper of Satoshi. That's why i said the electronic cash Bitcoin, not the currency Bitcoin. Some people wanted to take that electronic cash idea, and turn it into currency. That's a bad idea.
Well when bitcoin first started, i didn't have any transaction fees. Afterwards the protocol changed, forks did happen, and confusion ensued. However some programs start to emerge, about incentivizing social media users to post good content[1]. And of course open source developers should be incentivized by their users to fix the bugs, implement popular features that theirs users want etc. So some things start to happen, well mainstream adoption is a little bit far, but it will happen eventually.
Are there any movements to get bitcoin accepted by established platforms used for sponsoring development? (GitHub Sponsors, Patreon, Open Collective, Ko-Fi etc..)
Who knows where it is accepted! The things that can be implemented are for example contributing computational power. Lichess users do that [1], i use it all the time, but they do it for purely altruistic reasons. Altruism doesn't go very far by himself when the donor consumes valuable resources. That's why there is a cap on the total games someone can analyse, to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
In lichess billions of games are played each month, and lichess is accepting donations of big amounts of money, i.e. 10 dollars, 100 dollars. How about with every game that is played the players pay less than a penny, 0.1 penny of a dollar? Personally that would cost me less than a penny for each day of playing. Lichess would make a lot more money, than individual donors who pay big amounts, and everyone else playing for free.
See how ruthlessly i got downvoted, maybe it is the case that no one knows what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is nothing for free, everything is paid for. Using supercash almost infinitely divided, to small amounts. If that is implemented already in the traditional financial systems how come no one is doing it?
Comments
Sponsoring of open source projects is a problem that bitcoin aims to solve. That and many others. The electronic cash bitcoin not the currency bitcoin. The owners of the project will be able to construct an electronic company, and any value that a user gives, will be shared to the shareholders, in line of the shares any shareholder has to the project, i.e. how much he has contributed. A user wants a new feature or a fix of a bug? He gives coins to the open source company, and they will implement it. This will give incentive for programmers to increase the quality of the code, better documentation etc.
Besides the fact that existing systems work fine for this, the idea that users pay for a fix or feature is ludicrious.
Users are terrible project managers. They report things as bugs that aren't bugs, they request features that don't improve the product, they in general have a low hitrate in terms of providing successful direction for a project.
Setting up a system where users pay for a _specific_ thing to happen is just asking for trouble.
Users paying for development they already find useful, or for concepts that they believe have promise - that's the way to do it.
Yeah, that's all true, that users sometimes think of something as useful and it is not. Nothing to be done about it, except education. But let's say some users want of an open source program to integrate some graphs somewhere. They go to a social media and they ask the users. "How many find useful these graphs?" The users hit like to the feature, and they immediately transfer a small value to the owners of the project. In case the sum of all the values of all the users is enough, the owners of the project may go forward, accept the funds and allocate resources to implement this feature.
I don't understand how existing systems of money are incapable of doing this. The problem is the will, not the way.
Well if a company wants to give a large sum of money to an open source project for a feature, say a hundred dollars, or a thousand then it is the same. Electronic cash, i.e. bitcoin work better than the traditional ways of payment when there is a necessity for crowdfunding a little bit of money less than a penny, a 1/10 of a penny or 1/100, or 1/1000, from thousands of users. The reason bitcoin works better in that case, is because bitcoin is absolutely automated while in traditional payment systems a human is required to oversee the payments in case there is a fraud somewhere. That means a human is required to be paid, and humans are expensive to employ. That increases the cost of every transaction, as well as increases the minimal amount of the transferable value.
You seem to be blissfully unaware of transaction fees in bitcoinland
The electronic money that are known now as bitcoin, took a different turn from the white paper of Satoshi. That's why i said the electronic cash Bitcoin, not the currency Bitcoin. Some people wanted to take that electronic cash idea, and turn it into currency. That's a bad idea.
So... you're talking about something that doesn't exist
Well when bitcoin first started, i didn't have any transaction fees. Afterwards the protocol changed, forks did happen, and confusion ensued. However some programs start to emerge, about incentivizing social media users to post good content[1]. And of course open source developers should be incentivized by their users to fix the bugs, implement popular features that theirs users want etc. So some things start to happen, well mainstream adoption is a little bit far, but it will happen eventually.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/social-media-platforms-for-cr...
The most promising project on that list is no longer available: https://honest.cash/
"I have a hammer, who needs something nailed?"
Are there any movements to get bitcoin accepted by established platforms used for sponsoring development? (GitHub Sponsors, Patreon, Open Collective, Ko-Fi etc..)
Who knows where it is accepted! The things that can be implemented are for example contributing computational power. Lichess users do that [1], i use it all the time, but they do it for purely altruistic reasons. Altruism doesn't go very far by himself when the donor consumes valuable resources. That's why there is a cap on the total games someone can analyse, to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
In lichess billions of games are played each month, and lichess is accepting donations of big amounts of money, i.e. 10 dollars, 100 dollars. How about with every game that is played the players pay less than a penny, 0.1 penny of a dollar? Personally that would cost me less than a penny for each day of playing. Lichess would make a lot more money, than individual donors who pay big amounts, and everyone else playing for free.
See how ruthlessly i got downvoted, maybe it is the case that no one knows what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is nothing for free, everything is paid for. Using supercash almost infinitely divided, to small amounts. If that is implemented already in the traditional financial systems how come no one is doing it?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPRNluVn22w&t=2s