Out of curiosity, what is making the influences look stupid in your view? I've heard this take, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Discussion
One of the biggest ones is projecting that the knots core debate is an existential threat to Bitcoin and acting like Bitcoin is cooked over this/as if this is the biggest threat…when it absolutely isn’t.
Also folks projecting what “intent” core devs have over this issue and making it deeply personal. Seems driven by ego more than anything imo
The existentialism is maybe a little dramatic, but it's definitely a debatable point in my view.
This isn't a cut and dried technical problem with a single solution. There is an ideological/philosophical component too.
Ultimately, my position is basically: I don't like spam, Knots and OCEAN help me to personally reject the spam, so I like those things and enthusiastically adopt them myself. I encourage others to do so also, but it's every individual's choice.
Whether this specific technical point is existential or not is, again, debatable. But I find it seriously problematic that Core doesn't consider any position other than the one they've decided is right. By their decree (we have another word for that, fiat), they are deciding that nodes upgrading to V30 will accept spam without possibility for recourse. I find that behavior to be a legitimate threat.
This goes beyond mere spam. As suggested by nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsu0ur8h, opening OP_RETURN from 80/83 bytes to 100,000 bytes would allow storing child porn photos within that field. That would open the door for governments to step in and control the Bitcoin network.
Prevent child porn photos from making it's way to the Bitcoin network. Run Knots.
I agree with all of this in principle, but I think it's going pretty far down the realm of plausible to suggest that CP and governments taking over nodes is the primary problem here.
I would call that very low probability, and somewhat high but not crazily high impact.
I prefer to focus on how these huge transactions clog the chain, makes node running more expensive, and makes Bitcoin costlier to use as it was intended.
Which is sort of to say that I'm not quite so black pilled as my friend Mr Mechanic. Even though I agree with him on almost everything and he's been absolutely right before. So there's that.
I think one of the big problems are the hypo critic maxis, which claim to be pro-free-market. A free market is based on free decisions. This totally contradicts with humiliating participants for their decisions. People which advocate for a free market, can not also try force people to make some decision to buy Bitcoin.
I think most people have no problem with someone who is very happy to buy this or that stock. Same with Bitcoin and bring up, why they buy it.
But it is very illiberal and toxic, to bully people, which are coming to other conclusions. Like people who spread hate about so called "shitcoiners". This hate against other investments, staying on the fiat you got by working or whatever, is very counterproductive. Since one does simply not look professional and not convince through humiliation.
Someone who is professional can bring up arguments, to what use cases Bitcoin can be a solution to. And this same person still respects the decisions of others, independent of what they conclude to. This kind of respect is the bases, to explain anything at all. Without this one is not even explaining in the first place. Without it one is only selling something at all cost.
Bullying isn't good. I don't think it's bullying to say that the behavior of Bitcoin Core isn't right in this instance. Nor is it bullying to offer an alternative. I think this is what Trey was referring to.
I'm free-market on this. That includes the free market of ideas.
I'm also not compromising on my view that all "cryptocurrencies" other than Bitcoin are somewhere between scams and useless. But that's a totally different point here than what Trey originally brought up here, I think. Nobody is forcing anyone to adopt Bitcoin. Advocating strongly for it, and advocating against scams: absolutely.
Great to hear, that you are all pro freedom of ideas / speech. And great you also stand against bullying.
But when you look at nostr:nprofile1qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg6waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxwet5v9kxy7fwvdhk6tmkxyq3jamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxamgv4ex2tnrdakj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcqyr25zk3385uyv8le82xpwru5rvkdffn2tn7mkzf5q6tq7m9nz7zf7zs5hlj 's original post, it is a generalistic note against heroifying specific people and against stupid debates. Concluding, that this attitude is probably hindering a lot of people, which are not yet inside the Bitcoin bubble, from entering.
His response to me clarified that he was referring to the Core/Knots debate. But yeah, in general, you're making a fair point.
The trouble is, it's a free market of ideas. So you can't stop the "toxic" maxis from being hyper maxi. But you can tell them you think it's counterproductive. It's up to them if they want to listen. Most don't - I think they see the tradeoff of being toxic as akin to the immune system of Bitcoin, keeping scams and threats away.
I personally don't consider myself toxic, even if I agree with most of their points. There's a more neutral tone, for sure. And I'm also pragmatic. People will do what they want. I can only advocate for what I believe to be the best course of action.
I think we understand each other perfectly well in this point. I am not saying, being maxi and investing every liquidity into Bitcoin is toxic. This is a personal decision. Everyone can decide themselves, if they want to invest 10%, 80%, 100% or even take loans to invest into Bitcoin. Ever individual should use their freedom to make decisions based on their preferences and beliefs. This is all I advocate for.