IETF doesn't create the vision (and the results are embarrassing when they try); it standardizes stuff (and lets people add tons of optional complexity) after the initial prototype is done. IEEE and ECMA have similar attitudes while ISO seems to do more design-by-committee.
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree
by feelin_googley on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @08:44PM
(#15137296)
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree
by cocktailpeanuts on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @07:52PM
(#15137095)
Yes, like IETF. Not discrediting their contribution. Organizations like those are needed, just like how a non-founder operator CEO can be beneficial once a startup takes off.
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree
by feelin_googley on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @08:50PM
(#15137319)
The problem I see is when in their supposed wisdom they discredit the potential contribution of some lone visionary. And this goes back to your original premise, with which I strongly agree. History shows that sometimes one highly skilled programmer working alone has accomplished things that teams of programmers could not.
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree
by tonyarkles on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @10:44PM
(#15137812)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/24.pdf
"Rough consensus and running code"
You mean like the IETF?