UNPOPULAR OPINION:
I know nothing but my gut tells me something..
Bitcoin Core sounds like centralization itself, I mean it's funny enough it is already in the name, CORE.
Isn't it a single point of failure, an elite devs group?
Weren't we looking for decentralisation? Why it isn't as important in this case?
Everyone can run a node, everyone can start to mine.. can everyone be a Bitcoin core dev?
Everyone can try to be a Core dev.
Can you explain better, I am genuinely curious. Like, you submit your curriculum or something to someone?
You make a pull request on the core repo and if it's accepted by a centralized group of core devs, you are a core dev.
You can now apply for funding, or be paid off by Peter Thiel.
Oh ok, they could have call it Bitcoin core foundation..🥲
Jokes apart, doesn't sound very promising and much decentralised.
You don't have to run core tho. Any software that follows the consensus rules does fine as well. There's not many that many, popular alternatives tho.
Libbitcoin I would consider the only alternative.
Yeap, I saw that, and like you said there's nit much alternatives, and that's a huge risk and point od centralisation IMHO.
..also I read that people running Knot had they node technically attacked somehow.
WE NEED MORE NODES ALTERNATIVES, ALSO WOULD BE NICE ONE WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE MEMPOOL AND UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THE TIMECHAIN, FIRST TIME I DOWNLOADED A NODE I WAS LIKE.. SO NOW, WTF I DO WOTH THIS?
Not even that complicated. You can just fork the repo and develop within the bitcoin code repository.
Nope. It's FOSS. You can just go change the code.
You just start making contributions, it’s not that hard. I did it by adding usdt tracing and various memory improvements.
Ok, but I guess those contributions are reviewed and accepted by someone?
What am I trying to say is that for an outsider point of view, what it looks and sounds like is that there's something like a caste witu diatinct social position and relevance between devs.. again I really know nothing and asking questions to understand better, but I can tell you what the feeling is, and I have it before all this knot drama happened..
Looks social stratification between core devs and other devs..
yes people will evaluate your work based on merit, and if you do good work consistently then you can become a frequent core contributor. It’s not that complicated. I was even added as a frequent core contributor at one point even though i only have like 10 commits or something
Ok I get it.. but you will convine with me, that this is a centralised way or concept.
Let's say for absurd, I shitpost about those people and tweet stupid shit about them, but I do good work and consistly send contributions, even great ones, but of course the people reviewing it hate me because I am a dickhead and say stupid shit on X.. what happens?
I am genuinely trying to understand if I am the only in that does see risk of centralization and closed social group made by Core.
Keep asking questions. There are things going on in areas of this community that just don’t seem right.
Sounds like a reasonable opinion to me. If there’s even a tiny risk, we should take it seriously.
—This feels like more than a tiny risk.
In my experience, Inconsistent arguments that don’t make any sense means that the true motives are being withheld. Core devs are obfuscating their motives and it’s terrifying that so many people aren’t more concerned about it.
🧡👊🏻🍻
Amen.
It is FOSS so it is indeed hierarchical and centralized within its decentralization. You submit code and if there is a consensus within the hierarchy then you are a contributor.
I agree. I’ve learned more about node software due to this whole dust up, and was surprised to find how much depends on core. People would be crying if all the nodes were running on Umbrel.
Indeed this all drama is pushing me to get more into the technicalities.. and probably will have a solid own opinion in 2/3 cycles from now 😅..
Jokes apart, for me the main issue is not what Core does, is having a core itself.. I see it as single point of failure.
I’m currently thinking just don’t upgrade and wait to see what happens… all the arguments (well at least the solid, non-emotional, technical ones go way over my head.
Would be so much easier if one side said ‘hey you know what, you’re right, we hadn’t thought of that’.
Imagine that the first time I teied to run a node after 4 years in bitcoin, was 0.27, and all the drama started like after a couple of days I was running it 🥲.. they were waiting for me.
Yes, every node runner can AND SHOULD fork Bitcoin Core to read through the code and compile it themselves. They can make any changes as long as the consensus rules are complied with. There is no urgency to keep up with the upstream updates, unless some other software you run (LN node) depends on them. Bitcoin is what we, node runners, collectively agree upon.
