if there is an economic desire for these protocols to exist, the job of core devs is to make sure they do it in the least harmful way possible to decentralization. it's really that simple.
Discussion
???
why is confusing here. at bitcoin++ mempool antoine explained this pretty clearly. he talked to citrea people and realized they were about to launch something that would be damaging to the network and he proposed a solution. that's how this all started.
Absolutely not. There was economic desire to do everything that the shitcoins do and it was never the job of core to make that stuff happen either.
But also, even if it were the case. How do we measure the economic desire? We can't expect people to jump on board based on words and second hand observations.
If it really is that simple in your mind, then you must have some data?
Hearing one company say they will launch X is hardly data.
If this is all it takes then there is clear favouritism. They must be in favour of citrea specifically.
And IMO the data shouldn't come from entrepreneurs, it should come from the market. Until a product is launched, it is just an experiment. Let the entrepreneurs experiment and build a market and let that speak for why the nodes should change.
entrepreneurs are a large part of the market.
Entrepreneurs in plural yes. Not in singular. Entrepreneurs in plural don't typically band together to demand one feature (sometimes they do and it gets done, and sometimes they lose like with RBF)... For this case, I don't see a bunch of people advertising all the different use cases that all these different entrepreneurs will enable with this change and defending it.
Heck I don't even see people promoting citrea and what it can do. I hear more about covenant implementations.
Also, entrepreneurs that are waiting for a change in a decentralised system or who are willing to cause harm instead are not exactly who the core team and the users are supposed to bend over for.
Fortunately users are self serving, and I'm bullish on people informing themselves, having an opinion and doing what they think is best for themselves, and this change is not an "end of the world" type thing, but it is ruining reputations the way it is rolling out and the way certain devs are behaving.
So who's desire is that exactly and how much do they pay you for their desires?
So this is a business now.
Bitcoin is money. Core devs job is to keep Bitcoin safe and sound as money. Definitely not to support whatever people have a financial interest in doing. People have a financial interest in doing all kinds of things. Core devs job is to defend our money against all those financial interests that threaten Bitcoin's ability to function efficiently as money, now and in the future.
We definitely don't need to reproduce the fiat casino on Bitcoin.