Was Epochtalk doomed to fail?

[alani123]

From a software development perspective, Epochtalk had a massive scope.
It aimed to replace software such as the one this forum runs on, which on its turn is based on decades of collective knowledge and thousands of manhours by a very wide array of people that contributed to the SMF open source project.

The Epochtalk team was small. Not much is known about the people that were part of the development team. However, since the very inception of the project, many members of the bitcoin community were quick to point out that they seemingly were too young and seemingly lacked previous experience. It's easy to substantiate these conclusions given the fact that the developers, to their credit, use their real profiles on GitHub.

At the time of the team got the project, these developers would have been around 25 years old. Many had said that choosing such a team for a project with the goals Epochtalk was unacceptable. At the time, the budget was huge for how small bitcoin was as a whole, so it was a big deal. Eventually it got hard to follow this discourse because it got lumped together with the blocksize debate/crisis the bitcoin community was getting through around that time.

But focusing on Epochtalk's fate, now with the eventual announcement that the plug will be pulled from supporting its development after so long, even more questions arise. Looking back, I'm afraid we now have to admit that those expressing concern with how the project was handled were right.

The question of why this specific team was picked, and based on what criteria it was decided to support them continuing work on the project remain.

It appears that a large portion of the bitcointalk's community donation funds went toward this software's development. These were funds that were initially donated and held to the forum with the goal of improving bitcoin and its community.

How much did this investment cost?

The total amount spent was $5.9 million, spread across 11 years.

This remains one of the hardest subjects that concerns this community. The failure to deliver the new forum software, while no longer a hot topic after all these years, surely deserves a revisit to these old questions.

[BenCodie]

It appears that a large portion of the bitcointalk's community donation funds went toward this software's development. These were funds that were initially donated and held to the forum with the goal of improving bitcoin and its community.

How much did this investment cost?

The total amount spent was $5.9 million, spread across 11 years.

Imagine if that $5.9 million was actually used to improve Bitcoin itself and its community, rather than replacing a forum software that in 2025, still reigns as one of the best forum solutions there has ever been.

I really enjoy this forum and I believe theymos has been an integral part of it getting to where it is today...though there's no doubt that epochtalk was one of the biggest blunders in forum history. 11,000 BTC 3,900 BTC - imagine if instead used for something like a locked vault, purposed to reward those who contributed to this community down the line when BTC eventually took over? Or used to reward those who had already built or started new initiatives in the project development board? Would have, could have, should have I guess. Instead, trusting some kids to replace one of the largest community built forum softwares in our time.

While disappointing and sad, I guess there is no choice but to move on. The lack of transparency around epochtalk will surely remain, and the answers to questions that you, I and others seek, will only be met with no answer or comments like this:

Why did the forum pool so much BTC together instead of working on the project open-source or in outsourcing with milestone agreements?

Epochtalk is open source. You can fix it up, run a demo, and we'll all pile on to make fun of it.

I'd consider looking into it if it wasn't built on some godawful server-side javascript framework, but for someone who knows that shit or wants to learn, it might be an interesting project, or a complete waste of time.

or this

I think the main question is - how much BTC is left?

If you didn't donate any BTC, then its not a question at all as it doesn't concern you.

Actually it doesn't concern the donors much either, hence the use of the term "donation."

Pretty appalling from two members who are respected by the rest of the forum.

[nutildah]

11,000 BTC

Why do you keep repeating this incorrect figure when theymos already told you it was wrong?

Reportedly 11,000 BTC were donated toward creating this new forum software.

That's not true. 3116 BTC was donated, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of just $68k. The remainder comes from advertising/fee revenue, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of $3.2 million. (A lot of spending was also at these sorts of low prices.) Furthermore, donations were meant to be a way of supporting the forum in general terms; it wasn't like some Kickstarter project. The main pages about donations didn't mention the software project at all, and almost all donations were made before that project even started.

Obviously you're aware of his response as you quoted that same post.

I think the main question is - how much BTC is left?

If you didn't donate any BTC, then its not a question at all as it doesn't concern you.

Actually it doesn't concern the donors much either, hence the use of the term "donation."

Pretty appalling from two members who are respected by the rest of the forum.

Consider taking your own advice:

While disappointing and sad, I guess there is no choice but to move on.

[BenCodie]

Consider taking your own advice:

While disappointing and sad, I guess there is no choice but to move on.

"I guess there is no choice" means I don't see any other option. That doesn't mean that's what I'm advising, or what people should do.

As for the rest of your (valueless) post:

11,000 BTC

Why do you keep repeating this incorrect figure when theymos already told you it was wrong?

Reportedly 11,000 BTC were donated toward creating this new forum software.

That's not true. 3116 BTC was donated, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of just $68k. The remainder comes from advertising/fee revenue, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of $3.2 million. (A lot of spending was also at these sorts of low prices.) Furthermore, donations were meant to be a way of supporting the forum in general terms; it wasn't like some Kickstarter project. The main pages about donations didn't mention the software project at all, and almost all donations were made before that project even started.

Obviously you're aware of his response as you quoted that same post.

I think the main question is - how much BTC is left?

If you didn't donate any BTC, then its not a question at all as it doesn't concern you.

Actually it doesn't concern the donors much either, hence the use of the term "donation."

Pretty appalling from two members who are respected by the rest of the forum.

Honest mistake on the 11,000 BTC, I corrected it with theymos' figure...Though, I wish I hadn't made it considering if you deduct that correction, you contributed absolutely zero value with your post.

I won't take full fault on the figure - considering that you want to derail the thread on the 11,000 BTC / 3116 BTC debate, here's the whole chain which is yet to be responded to (for audience context):

Reportedly 11,000 BTC were donated toward creating this new forum software.

That's not true. 3116 BTC was donated, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of just $68k. The remainder comes from advertising/fee revenue, with a total value-at-time-of-transaction of $3.2 million. (A lot of spending was also at these sorts of low prices.) Furthermore, donations were meant to be a way of supporting the forum in general terms; it wasn't like some Kickstarter project. The main pages about donations didn't mention the software project at all, and almost all donations were made before that project even started.

Do you plan to compete other social platforms and make this forum more popular like it was during its glory days?

To justify my comment, it was based on these ones:

Buyers remorse is worse with bitcoin.  I am a guy looks at what he spent to buy a tablet with 0.2 BTC and keep thinking I have a mental disability looking back but then I think of Adam Levine's camera for 30, and Theymos paying 11k for web software and another guy bought two pizzas for the same amount.  Money is for spending. It's only a game.  I learned a lot by using the tools and services I bought with BTC, and I am glad I had those.  It must be disheartening after three years for Theymos but good software can take time.

The choice may have been different if we were to start the project now. But I believe that interfaces are what matters. Also, we kind of didn't have a choice on the frontend. If you would like to see, our migration layer and database schema design is written in Elixir and Ecto. As for JS, there are definitely shortcomings but performance-wise, Node is good enough on the server side for the time being.

Do you have any specific questions?

Do you realize how hilariously unbelievable it is that 11k BTC has been donated for new forum software and nothing has changed?

Do you ever feel like you scammed bitcointalk users that donated?

Javascript is slow... why the fuck would you be developing a 100 million dollar forum in javascript? "Good enough," seriously???. With all the bitcoin that was donated this is just insane... 2018 and no new software. Not even an alpha example to go look at.

You never corrected that the actual figure was 3116 BTC and not 11,000 BTC there, so I assumed they were correct. That figure has been thrown around more than once.

As for $68k being value at the time of transaction, that means that each coin was worth $21 each at the time of the transaction which would have been February 2013 at the latest. I estimated values based on this post:

Work is underway by Slickage on new forum software for this forum. The software will be written in Node.js. The goal is to create new open source forum software that will directly compete with software like SMF and phpBB. Unlike Discourse, the software will be featureful and information-dense. Unlike Reddit, the software will support and encourage lengthy, high-quality posts (while allowing shorter posts). The software will be a jump forward from our current forum, but not something entirely new. The basic concepts will stay the same, but with significantly better code, better methods of filtering the huge amount of content, and many other useful features. All old forum data will be retained and migrated to the new software.

Here is the current master requirements document. This document is evolving. If you have any ideas for new features or changes that are reasonably high-priority and realistic, discuss them in this section.

Which was over a year after February 2013, March 2014 (Price was $500+). Though if February 2013 was the case, that would mean that work began a year after the donations came in? It sounds like the project was not going so great from the beginning if that's the case. One whole year before development even begins is quite a long time...one whole year before a post is made or a goal is published is also quite a long time.

I could go on, though I'll actually take nutildah's advice (despite it being wrong in my eyes) as I wasn't a donator and I'm not interested in pressing the admin of a forum I enjoy being a part of. All I will say to end this post, is that I think you could be a bit more transparent with what happened since it's ending here. Answering questions like why it took a year for development to start, how much Slickage got for this failed work, any disputes between the two of you, or any kind of recount, would be useful insight for a donator (or an outsider) to understand the whole saga (especially since not a single thread with info like this was opened in that board since that initial thread, until this thread, afaik). That's my opinion (not a requirement, obviously).

All of that aside, it is a part of life to fail, and if this was just genuine failure, it sucks that the project turned out that way and I'm sorry for you and the donators that it did. I know that personally it wouldn't feel good, and I'm not trying to make you feel worse than you already might. I'll leave this at that.

The no response to the above and the lack of transparency on the epochtalk project as a whole is why I said to the user that I guess there is no choice but to move on - not because that is the right way forward, but because no other choice or explanations are seemingly going to be given.

I'm not sure why you continue to trying to divert discussion about the amounts and epochtalk, making yourself look like a fool each time you post in defense of the notion that "what happened to 3000-11000 BTC is no ones business, not even the donators". Not only is each time you post counterintuitive to that notion, though it's irrational, and shows that for some reason, you don't want people digging into the matter. Why is that?

[OcTradism]

Imagine if that $5.9 million was actually used to improve Bitcoin itself and its community, rather than replacing a forum software that in 2025, still reigns as one of the best forum solutions there has ever been.

It is a big loss but the Bitcoin forum and Bitcoin community, then Bitcoin growth initiatives are very different things. You can ask the forum to spend money for other things beyond this forum, because it's like off-purpose spending as it does not relate to forum operations. It can break unofficial MOU between forum admins and donators, VIP members too.

It's a lost investment in development of a new forum software that will never be used because bad developments after many years. I believe in theymos because he is a careful and well minded person that shown in his posts and policies in the forum, so this failed investment is one of minus things from him, but it does not wipe out his good administration here for Bitcoin forum in many years since Satoshi Nakamoto disappearance.

[ABCbits]

From a software development perspective, Epochtalk had a massive scope.

I agree, writing from scratch rather than migrate to one of modern open-source forum software sounds very ambitious. Although to be fair, Vanilla Forums doesn't look modern/suitable enough during 2013[1], while Discourse was too young back then[2].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130102110758/http://vanillaforums.org/discussions
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130902194806/http://meta.discourse.org/latest/more

[Alpha Marine]

Imagine if that $5.9 million was actually used to improve Bitcoin itself and its community, rather than replacing a forum software that in 2025, still reigns as one of the best forum solutions there has ever been.

Don't imagine.
Every organisation, whether profit or non-profit constantly seeks ways it can grow. Companies spend millions in research only to find out it was a waste of time. That's real life.
There has never been a visionary leader in history, whether the leader of a country, company, movement or any other organisation who didn't have to make bold decisions. If it doesn't work out, we get up dust ourselves up and try again. Don't ever blame anybody for trying.

As the saying goes, "The difference between a genius and a madman is in the result'.
If things had worked out just as he hoped and the new software became better than the current one, he would have been hailed for the bold step
You have a right to ask questions but don't make it look like he made a foolish decision for trying to make the forum better. It just didn't work out, so we move on.

[Lucius]

~snip~
This remains one of the hardest subjects that concerns this community. The failure to deliver the new forum software, while no longer a hot topic after all these years, surely deserves a revisit to these old questions.

Couldn't this question have been asked in a thread dealing with this topic?

No matter how much it seems to some that the community is disappointed (or not), the fact is that we cannot regret what we never had, and that the money that was invested was (and remains) the money of the forum, which is fundamentally private and centralized.

Forums (as already written) are increasingly becoming a thing of the past, because today's kids are already learning that it is completely normal to communicate with AI rather than with real people. Some new look of the forum with new features would therefore most likely not change anything.

[BenCodie]

Imagine if that $5.9 million was actually used to improve Bitcoin itself and its community, rather than replacing a forum software that in 2025, still reigns as one of the best forum solutions there has ever been.

It is a big loss but the Bitcoin forum and Bitcoin community, then Bitcoin growth initiatives are very different things. You can ask the forum to spend money for other things beyond this forum, because it's like off-purpose spending as it does not relate to forum operations. It can break unofficial MOU between forum admins and donators, VIP members too.

It's a lost investment in development of a new forum software that will never be used because bad developments after many years. I believe in theymos because he is a careful and well minded person that shown in his posts and policies in the forum, so this failed investment is one of minus things from him, but it does not wipe out his good administration here for Bitcoin forum in many years since Satoshi Nakamoto disappearance.

If this forum followed the same values that Bitcoin has instilled within it (namely decentralization where possible, prioritizing consensus and open source development) then the forum wouldn't have wasted 3000+ BTC on building the forum software, and its community wouldn't be as corrupt as it is today.

I am almost certain that Satoshi Nakamoto would be appalled with the state of this forum, the members who rank high within it, and would only be pleased with its activity (which in my opinion, would be higher if it prioritized Bitcoin's core values, and is lower due to its administration).

Running a forum of this size is not an easy feet. I'm not persecuting theymos in any way - however I am persecuting the fact that there is an elite class of decision makers, when this forum should have prioritized decision making by voting, and doing its best to be as decentralized/community governed as possible - as is the bitcoin way.

Imagine if that $5.9 million was actually used to improve Bitcoin itself and its community, rather than replacing a forum software that in 2025, still reigns as one of the best forum solutions there has ever been.

Don't imagine.
Every organisation, whether profit or non-profit constantly seeks ways it can grow. Companies spend millions in research only to find out it was a waste of time. That's real life.
There has never been a visionary leader in history, whether the leader of a country, company, movement or any other organisation who didn't have to make bold decisions. If it doesn't work out, we get up dust ourselves up and try again. Don't ever blame anybody for trying.

As the saying goes, "The difference between a genius and a madman is in the result'.
If things had worked out just as he hoped and the new software became better than the current one, he would have been hailed for the bold step
You have a right to ask questions but don't make it look like he made a foolish decision for trying to make the forum better. It just didn't work out, so we move on.

Your argument is fine however at the end of the day, the entire fund that was purposed to improving Bitcoin and its community was used to rebuild forum software that did not need replacing. I'm not blaming anyone for the decision, though the decision was a stupid one - and not just a stupid one, it was one that the entire community did not vote on. It seems to have just been decided somewhat unilaterally to use the entire/majority of the amount of donated Bitcoin toward a software that was decided by the top ranks of the forums, which additionally put Bitcoin in the pockets of the those ranked at the top of the forum.

Even if the forum software was a good idea and hypothetically the community came to a consensus and agreed upon it (you know, in the way that everything else in Bitcoin is done), then it should have been built open source, just like Bitcoin was. All the donated BTC should not have gone to some private development group of kids.

The difference between good leaders and bad ones are not just their results, its their decisions...and the decision to rebuild perfectly good forum software, to sell all the donated BTC, to have no transparency, to build closed source, to hire kids, and the list goes on, shows poor leadership, and a long series of bad decisions. You can paint it nice and pretty as you have, however reality is, it is not that pretty.

[nutildah]

It is a big loss...

...this failed investment is one of minus things from (theymos)...

...its community wouldn't be as corrupt as it is today...

I am almost certain that Satoshi Nakamoto would be appalled with the state of this forum, the members who rank high within it, and would only be pleased with its activity (which in my opinion, would be higher if it prioritized Bitcoin's core values, and is lower due to its administration)....

I am persecuting the fact that there is an elite class of decision makers...

...the decision was a stupid one...

...shows poor leadership, and a long series of bad decisions.

We get it already. You don't the forum, you don't like its administration, and you don't like its members. Pretty obvious that Bitcointalk is not for you. So, see you later. Adios, sayonara, hasta luigi.

Good grief I've never seen someone complain so much about nothing at all. He didn't even pretend to offer any kind of solution, just pure bitching.

[LoyceV]

At the time of the team got the project, these developers would have been around 25 years old. Many had said that choosing such a team for a project with the goals Epochtalk was unacceptable.

This is the first comment I see about the age of the developers (but much of this happened before I joined Bitcointalk). I don't think 25 years of age is bad for programmers: they probably had years of experience and are good coders. However, it sounds like they lacked oversight by an experienced senior (software engineer). Being a good programmer isn't enough, and seeing the bigger picture takes much more experience.

Would have, could have, should have I guess.

In Dutch, we have at least 2 sayings about this, but they don't translate well. It comes down to this: in retrospect, everything is easy. If theymos would have known back then what he knows now, I'm pretty sure he would have taken a different decision. But that's just that: in hindsight.

Running a forum of this size is not an easy feet. I'm not persecuting theymos in any way - however I am persecuting the fact that there is an elite class of decision makers, when this forum should have prioritized decision making by voting, and doing its best to be as decentralized/community governed as possible - as is the bitcoin way.

You seem to think Bitcointalk is a democracy. Allow me to take this quote out of context:

theymos as our benevolent dictator.

~, and its community wouldn't be as corrupt as it is today.
~
~, which additionally put Bitcoin in the pockets of the those ranked at the top of the forum.

If you make such accusations, I'd like to see some evidence.

[hugeblack]

It might be worth creating a thread about what steps @theymos should take to ensure that what happened with Epochtalk doesn't happen again, or in other words, to ensure that the remaining funds are used properly.

I don't know what suggestions would be helpful, but I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.

[LoyceV]

I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.

First point on the agenda: the salary of the forum board members

[BenCodie]

It is a big loss...

...this failed investment is one of minus things from (theymos)...

...its community wouldn't be as corrupt as it is today...

I am almost certain that Satoshi Nakamoto would be appalled with the state of this forum, the members who rank high within it, and would only be pleased with its activity (which in my opinion, would be higher if it prioritized Bitcoin's core values, and is lower due to its administration)....

I am persecuting the fact that there is an elite class of decision makers...

...the decision was a stupid one...

...shows poor leadership, and a long series of bad decisions.

We get it already. You don't the forum, you don't like its administration, and you don't like its members. Pretty obvious that Bitcointalk is not for you. So, see you later. Adios, sayonara, hasta luigi.

Good grief I've never seen someone complain so much about nothing at all. He didn't even pretend to offer any kind of solution, just pure bitching.

That's not true at all. I just don't like corruption, and I don't like certain members to varying degrees and extents. Otherwise, I really enjoy the forum, the reading and discussion it provides, and just about every aspect of it outside of the politics and the cabal. The administrative decisions clearly could have been better at times, though the forum still exists and is very active. While I critique huge blunders like the forum software, and constantly critique the wild contradiction that Bitcoin is all about decentralization, openness, consensus and so on, while the forum operates in a way that is almost the opposite, that does not mean I do not like the forum as a whole.

You can snip chop and take whatever words you want to be able to muster a response like you did there all you like, it makes no difference to me. As for offering a solution, the forum obviously does not want to change the way things operate, so therefore there is no solution other than the benevolent leader to not repeat the same actions/mistake, which not only I'm sure he won't, though is not possible to replicate.

Would have, could have, should have I guess.

In Dutch, we have at least 2 sayings about this, but they don't translate well. It comes down to this: in retrospect, everything is easy. If theymos would have known back then what he knows now, I'm pretty sure he would have taken a different decision. But that's just that: in hindsight.

Running a forum of this size is not an easy feet. I'm not persecuting theymos in any way - however I am persecuting the fact that there is an elite class of decision makers, when this forum should have prioritized decision making by voting, and doing its best to be as decentralized/community governed as possible - as is the bitcoin way.

You seem to think Bitcointalk is a democracy. Allow me to take this quote out of context:

theymos as our benevolent dictator.

~, and its community wouldn't be as corrupt as it is today.
~
~, which additionally put Bitcoin in the pockets of the those ranked at the top of the forum.

If you make such accusations, I'd like to see some evidence.

If everyone lived by that saying, no one would be guilty of anything. It's a cop out - but I don't care enough to continue this discussion. I am a critic, I have given my critique, my posts are out there and public for others to see forever, anyone who wants to dig, can dig.

I do not think bitcointalk is a democracy at all. It's obviously ruled and influenced by those who dominated it early, and by those who are close to theymos. I never said otherwise, though I said that it should be otherwise given that Bitcoin and its origins was not in line with this nature. As for the proof of the accusations, you know what I'm talking about, go and look into the blockchain yourself...however to just pick out a blatant one, the fees paid to mutli-signatories is a easy cherry pick. There's plenty of proof that those ranked at the top of the forum have received opportunity and reward, though I have no interest in participating in your cornering into an assignment that will take hours. I've done enough reading on this forum to be able to speak in an informed manner, I've seen enough corruption to know that corruption exists, and I can speak my voice and post so that others who are maybe more committed can dig into it, otherwise it can be left alone, if that's ultimately what nature and people want.

I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.

First point on the agenda: the salary of the forum board members

Or just post out of appreciation/to give back to the forum that has already bore a lot of fruits for those who would likely be invited to contribute to that board.

It might be worth creating a thread about what steps @theymos should take to ensure that what happened with Epochtalk doesn't happen again, or in other words, to ensure that the remaining funds are used properly.

I don't know what suggestions would be helpful, but I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.

That's a start if the forum wants to make a change - though honestly, I think it's too late. The way this forum is will not change, and if it does, it probably won't be done right, or will be usurped by those who are cozy with the way it is. Those who wanted to change it are probably already gone, and the ones with influence have such influence because of the way it is. All one can do at most is critique, but not expect change - nor fight for it, otherwise they'll likely lose a lot of time only to make next to no difference.

[KingsDen]

I can say that the amount mentioned here is quite big for recreating a software. If there wasn't something like Bitcointalk, it would have been a different thing but this is a situation where the current software is already in existence.

I thought a particular board would have been dedicated for this software development, as the developers progress, they report in the forum to keep everyone on same page.

I'm not blaming anyone for the decision, though the decision was a stupid one - and not just a stupid one, it was one that the entire community did not vote on.

Do you mean there was nothing like a poll created to know the members opinion on a new software before the project started?

[joker_josue]

I have been listening to this topic of new software for the forum for 10 years.
I've seen a lot of debate and criticism on the subject.

Yes, the project didn't go as expected and things didn't go well.
But, despite this, I see more people criticizing than being willing to do something, even if it's something totally new and start from scratch.

Well, maybe there were even people who showed that availability and it ended up not happening. They didn't always have to come forward to say it. Now, there has been no news on the subject for years, so there are probably no major initiatives on this path.

Now, in the midst of all this, it took a @PowerGlove, to really see things happen in the last 2 years, in order to improve the forum.

That to me, means two things
There is a desire for things to be able to improve
If there are people - programmers, capable and interested, things can happen.

That's why I see more criticism than willingness to do something (maybe I'm speaking against myself).

[LTU_btc]

Lot of things can be said now after we saw what happened. If theymos would have knowed how things will end, I'm sure that would have done something different. Unfortunately, it ended as mistake, very expensive mistake.
Personally, I reacted to these news calmly as there weren't my money involved. If I would be one of donators, probably I would be disappointed or angry.

This is the first comment I see about the age of the developers (but much of this happened before I joined Bitcointalk). I don't think 25 years of age is bad for programmers: they probably had years of experience and are good coders. However, it sounds like they lacked oversight by an experienced senior (software engineer). Being a good programmer isn't enough, and seeing the bigger picture takes much more experience.

Not much is known about these developpers, so I'm wondering did their age was mentioned somewhere? And I don't really know how 25 yers is bad age. If it's implication that they were too young, then I don't agree. It's normal age for web developper and and many people already have enough experience at such age.

[nutildah]

If everyone lived by that saying, no one would be guilty of anything. It's a cop out - but I don't care enough to continue this discussion.

I know you don't want to continue the discussion. You just want to criticize and then be free from having to explain yourself.

It's obviously ruled and influenced by those who dominated it early, and by those who are close to theymos.

They "dominated it" through providing consistently valuable contributions, the same way the maintainers of Bitcoin Core have "dominated" bitcoin. The fate of the forum was entrusted to theymos because he proved himself to have good leadership qualities, governing the forum in the same spirit of bitcoin governance.

I've seen enough corruption to know that corruption exists,

Its an entirely opt-in system, and nobody ever claimed it was perfect. If you don't like it, move on. Nobody is keeping you here.
 
Personally I'm not sure we could ask for a better dictator. Things could have gone horribly awry and they really didn't. Instead, we have a careful balance of freedom of speech and a system that motivates people to behave in a (mostly) civilized manner. If you feel its "corrupt", why waste a single further second of your life here?

That's a start if the forum wants to make a change - though honestly, I think it's too late. The way this forum is will not change, and if it does, it probably won't be done right, or will be usurped by those who are cozy with the way it is. Those who wanted to change it are probably already gone, and the ones with influence have such influence because of the way it is. All one can do at most is critique, but not expect change - nor fight for it, otherwise they'll likely lose a lot of time only to make next to no difference.

This is perhaps what is funniest to me: the idea that Bitcointalk needs to do anything, other than exist. It doesn't need to change, evolve, adapt, or do anything except preserve the posts of Satoshi and other early contributors. The day that satoshi's posts change or disappear is the day I'll call it quits.

[alani123]

Lot of things can be said now after we saw what happened. If theymos would have knowed how things will end, I'm sure that would have done something different. Unfortunately, it ended as mistake, very expensive mistake.
Personally, I reacted to these news calmly as there weren't my money involved. If I would be one of donators, probably I would be disappointed or angry.

This is the first comment I see about the age of the developers (but much of this happened before I joined Bitcointalk). I don't think 25 years of age is bad for programmers: they probably had years of experience and are good coders. However, it sounds like they lacked oversight by an experienced senior (software engineer). Being a good programmer isn't enough, and seeing the bigger picture takes much more experience.

Not much is known about these developpers, so I'm wondering did their age was mentioned somewhere? And I don't really know how 25 yers is bad age. If it's implication that they were too young, then I don't agree. It's normal age for web developper and and many people already have enough experience at such age.

There were several red flags about hiring these specific developers but age is also an important one. When you do business with millions of $, you go with the safe options. The conventional knowledge about software development is that to become a senior developer you need around 10 years of hands on experience. University doesn't count as business experience. At 25 you're fresh off university and you may have one or two years of business experience at best. You're nowhere near a senior developer.

And even when it comes to someone being a senior developer, not everyone is suitable to lead a team regardless of experience in years. Let alone to supervise a software development project where you'll not only be responsible for planning and supervision, but even be responsible for managing your own goals and schedule within the project.

It was obvious from early on that these particular developers lacked the seniority and experience in their field to handle something like this. Age is one of the factors that make it blatantly obvious.

There are exceptions of course. For instance, Linus Tolvards, the Benevolent Dictator for Life of Linux, started work on the project when he was 21. Similar story for Vitalik Buterin. Hell, even Theymos is a profoundly talented individual because going by his word where he said he's 21 around 12 years ago. Which means he coded the first ever block explorer when he was a teenager.

So to an extent, maybe we can excuse Theymos for entrusting people around his age. But as I wrote above, when doing business with millions, the safe solution would be to hire an experienced firm, instead of expecting three young adults to show profound levels of intellect and complete a vast project on their own.

The questions remain however. After all these years we finally have an answer about the total costs. But that brings up more questions. We can understand now, the critics were right. But still the questions remain. Why were these specific devs picked and how could it make sense to keep paying so much money for this rate of progress?

[LoyceV]

It was obvious from early on that these particular developers lacked the seniority and experience in their field to handle something like this.

Your account is from 2013. Can you show some of your posts where you pointed this out early on? "In hindsight" is too late.

when doing business with millions, the safe solution would be to hire an experienced firm

I don't think the original intention was to spend millions of dollars on Epochtalk.