Why don’t you lay out your argument instead of making snide comments?
Discussion
?? how is this snide
Okay. I misinterpreted. Can you explain what you mean?
i was trying to distill the debate into an analogy that could be digested by people unaware of the technical details.
The main issues are not technical. I’ve pointed this out earlier but 🦗🦗🦗why?
I guess he has me blocked 🤷♂️
? I didn’t understand your comment. Was it a question?
Oh, there we go.
I mean previously I raised the point that all your arguments on this topic are technical. But there are non-technical issues at play that I have seen addressed. See:
Do todd and lopp speak for core? There are way more active contributors i would put above them, and they would agree
They appear to be the ‘sponsors’. Todd opened the PR, but for which Core Dev? The lack of transparency is a concern.
I prefer to stick to technical arguments over the actual PR content rather than assume anything nefarious. Lots of people are paid to work on things
If you can't pay people to work on things, open source is nowhere near as valuable because only programmers get to benefit from the ability to change the code.
Bitcoin is a low trust environment. IMO that means radical transparency is required from contributors, particularly around pay and employment.
Public statements of conflicts of interest are standard practice in some industries. You might think that’s not very cypherpunk. Sure. But is it worth a node split like this?
And I guess that’s the disconnect. Regardless of how technically sound it is, people don’t like how it went down or how it looks. You CAN’T fix this with technical arguments or reason. It’s a public relations issue now.
Core, as a group would need to publicly accept responsibility and acknowledge how it was mishandled. Apologise for blocking discussion around issues that were raised and walk the policy back if they want to ‘convince’ Knots users to go back.
Focusing on the technical aspects just seems to create more division, as these threads demonstrate.
Metaphors and analogies only lay the groundwork for explaining how something works or why it’s necessary. Example: Saying money production is like turning on the money printer. The person hears/reads that and says, "wow, how does that work?" You've created an opening for learning.
You’re analogy about garbage only succeeded in triggering me. I am running Knots, having listened to one side of the debate. Maybe I'm wrong or, more likely, I've overreacted or fallen for a bad argument.