Reproducible builds just means that two people can compile the same code and get the same result, traditionally that's not the case as different build environments handle compilation slightly differently.
While yes, it is a good feature to have for auditing purposes, it doesn't mean that the program isn't open source because it lacks it.
Its peculiar how inclined people are to trust an algorithm (mining, staking) developed by someone else without understanding the cryptography.
Then when private aspects of encryption come up without open source, it starts controversy. All legal stuff about back doors, its irrelevant to the argument at hand. This tainted legal rhetoric about encryption has defiled the logic in the open vs closed source debate.
Goes back to the Pirate Bay legal battles, all the fear and stigma there made this so complex once Hollywood got their lawyers behind the encryption wars.
Reproducible builds just means that two people can compile the same code and get the same result, traditionally that's not the case as different build environments handle compilation slightly differently.
While yes, it is a good feature to have for auditing purposes, it doesn't mean that the program isn't open source because it lacks it.
Its peculiar how inclined people are to trust an algorithm (mining, staking) developed by someone else without understanding the cryptography.
Then when private aspects of encryption come up without open source, it starts controversy. All legal stuff about back doors, its irrelevant to the argument at hand. This tainted legal rhetoric about encryption has defiled the logic in the open vs closed source debate.
Goes back to the Pirate Bay legal battles, all the fear and stigma there made this so complex once Hollywood got their lawyers behind the encryption wars.