rich1.0npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckhttps://nostr.ae/npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373cknjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote: <snip> > Also, the incentive for new > developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to > influence the code and this should be considered <snip> > Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. Your former statement is a great example of why "rough consensus and running code" is superior to design by committee. An argument should be assessed on its technical merit alone, not on the number of people advancing it -- a process that would be open to exactly the type of external manipulation you say you are concerned about.