/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50448867
>>I am more interested in the possibility of introducing new bugs in the source code.
>That's what multiple 3rd-party audits are for.
3rd-party audits are not the ultimate solution. You want as many 1st-party audits as possible by the manner of having many developers contributing to the development of the protocol and looking out for bugs, not 2-3 people.
Let me be clear that I don't believe Monero has a centralization problem with so few developers, as the development is still made in the clear and I've noticed that the development community *is* open for new members who actually want to contribute.
That being said, the number is extremely low, and it's very hard to defend the position of "just wait another 10 years and we will get more developers". Monero is almost 9 years old and we still have one guy doing most of the development.
Is there any way I can explain how this is quite a big problem? If the guy dies tomorrow the project development might stall altogether until someone who's also a C++ God steps up. I think this is the biggest risk the Monero Project faces today and I fear people will only care once the only developer leaves, dies, gets sick, disappear, etc. For some reason people are unable to construct a future where this man stops working for monero for one reason or another.

What about semi-centralized institutions that actually give salaries to developers and researchers so they can focus on Monero's source code? After all, even if it's an open source project mostly driven by volunteers, these people still need to eat and having a salary provides (at least some) financial security to people.

>>28894544
>>28894620
Correct. End of thread.

>>19780219
Hello There

It's time for a coup so that THE TRUE KING may rise!