pull down to refresh
162 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 21 Nov \ parent \ on: The problem with AI generated contributions to open source projects AI
I thought about including a paragraph or two on this: basically, yes.
I was at a bitdevs last night, and there was a little discussion of the whole BIP 444 thing and someone was going strong on this idea that the people working on Core should have accommodated the people who wanted the option to change their datacarriersize limit.
It feels the same as accommodating the people who want to be able to submit BIPs without having put in enough time and effort to be able to write the BIP on their own.
I don't see how Open Source equals Communially Owned, nor do I understand why people who work on an open source project should be responsive to me, a user.
They can be responsive, if they want, but they can also ignore users and perhaps users will go elsewhere. Perhaps there will be a vibe-coders' implementation of Bitcoin to which the vibe coders can all submit their BIPs. I don't think I'll run it, though.
I'd much prefer the market to determine who handles vibe coder submissions the best.
someone was going strong on this idea that the people working on Core should have accommodated the people who wanted the option to change their datacarriersize limit.
Isn't that the state of the thing right now? I still don't understand the issue people take now that everything is as it was.
without having put in enough time and effort to be able to write the BIP on their own.
That's why deprioritizing is a thing. It's not no, but instead it balances the effort. If you expect High Quality Service, then you gotta propose High Quality Work.
I don't think I'll run it, though.
Not unless vibe coding suddenly becomes high quality coding, indeed.
reply