I completely disagree. The technical and rational people are the *only* valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.
If you want to make a change, then become a core contributor, learn how bitcoin works, and become a part of the development process. Forking off into some alternate with an unhinged maintainer is not the way.
Bitcoin is far more than the technical people who do things to its code. Every holder, noderunner, and miner also gets a say.
Bitcoin is not "ruled" by its developers. If others actors in Bitcoin don't like what the developers do, they can and should reject the changes.
Core is "trying to change" not knots. You have it reversed.
Yup, just more deception and gaslighting.
Covid and vaccine mandates but with code. “Trust the experts”
“You think you don’t want your node to relay and store spam, but you actually do. Trust me bro”
I disagree with this. Bitcoin is technology and economics. And that means every economic actor has input on what it is and should be.
I think the point is that core wants to make changes and as you said non technical don't want to make changes. Am I wrong?
I'm deleting damus and never recommending. Bitcoin is my money, and I have valid opinions even if I don't code. Plus, you - the coder - obviously don't understand bitcoin at all. This is THE DUMBEST and most arrogant post I've ever seen on nostr. Impressive.
I really dont care, cya
Which is why you lose in life. Cya
Says the nobody who has nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Projects the actual value leech adding nothing to this conversation
Others have tried to explain it to you. You're slow, so I'll try it again.
Core is making the changes, not knots. The changes they are making will allow contiguous images of CSAM or other crap on the network. This is not theoretical, it already happened to BSV. By storing and transmitting those images, you become the felon.
I don't need to code to understand this. Why can't you?
I apologize for the insults. I ask you to reconsider your stance that only coders have valid opinions on bitcoin code. You don't have to be a doctor to have valid opinions on your body and health (which medicines and vaccines you receive or reject). You don't have to be an elected politician to have valid opinions on government. And you don't have to write code to have valid opinions on the monetary policies of bitcoin.
Says the worthwhile person contributing actual value to the conversation
If the technical/rational ones are being paid then should they still be considered the only valid ones?
I’m not saying core is bought and paid for. But unless we know 100% that they are not then why would we think they’re the only ones with valid opinions?
do you have any idea of the people who work on bitcoin? I have met lots of them in person and have talked to them at length. I suggest get to know them before you slander them and me.
No slander intended, just making a point. Same as how “trusting the science” may be questionable due to incentives. So it’s worth asking questions, imo.
Ultimately, I’m just not hearing about the benefits that come from the size limit. Why isn’t that being discussed? Can you speak to the benefits? Instead of benefits all I’m hearing is: It’s worthless to resist or trust the professionals. I just want to know the benefits since I’m usually on the side of progress.
*size limit increase
Weird argument for someone who just lost half the market share of a project within a few months. Nobody gonna pay you or give you gold stars for contributing to something no one wants.
fixed it: "I completely agree. The technical and rational people are NOT the valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.
If you want to make a change, then become a KNOTS contributor, learn how bitcoin works, run a node. Forking off into some alternate with an the *only* sensible maintainer is a way but not ideal."
the only ones who doesnt provide any ratiinal for why core30 is supposed to be good is you.
esentially, you disqualify yourself. you say you trust core, thus you dont have a facts or arguments based opinion yourself.
you currently choose that, thus nobody shluld discuss the pros/cons of core30 with you, because your opinion is just: i believe in core - they probably thought about it.
yeah - let me know if you change your mind by providing an actual issue based opinion that can be discussed. believe cant be discussed
