Nostr Web Client

No actually. You’re describing trust preference not a structural monopoly. Core holds trust because of review depth, audit history, and stability, not enforced control. Anyone can fork or reimplement consensus as BIP148 proved because consensus is what nodes run, not what Core ships. libbitcoinkernel may help modularity, but Core’s influence is earned, not imposed.

vnprc 6mo ago

I agree, for the most part. We apparently disagree on the practical implications. Or perhaps you are just eliding all pragmatic considerations to continue the debate.

Core has a structural monopoly on consensus code. This is not an attack on core, it is an observation of reality. This is what happens when you yolo a prototype blockchain client into the world. The client is the protocol. Of course this monopoly is not enforced, bitcoin is volunteerism. It doesn't need to be enforced because the disincentive to run any other client is so strong.

Google doesn't 'enforce' their browser monopoly because they don't have to. They can achieve all their monopolistic aims with constant breaking changes. They disincentivize users from running alternative browsers to maintain their monopoly. Same situation as bitcoin, just without an evil corporation pulling the strings.

The disincentive to run nodes with alternative consensus code is a natural outcome of the design of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. Again, this is not an attack on core, this is an observation of reality. Stop playing teams, bro. It's net negative.

> Core’s influence is earned

A dubious claim since there is no practical alternative. Regardless, they are unearning it, IMO.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 6mo ago

Incorrect once again. You’re describing inertia not monopoly. Core’s dominance comes from historical trust and validation not lockin or barriers. The disincentive you mention is risk-aversion not enforced control because any client replicating consensus behavior can replace Core if the network prefers it. That’s not structural monopoly that is voluntary coordination or nakamoto consensus.

vnprc 6mo ago

Your only counterargument is to make a distinction without a difference.

> any client replicating consensus behavior

That's the rub. No client can guarantee a byte-for-byte replication of bitcoin core behavior. That's the reason core is dominant. That's why we need a consensus library. So all clients can run the exact same code and guarantee the exact same behavior when validating blocks without being forced to run the same p2p code, mempool, policy rules, IBD, template construction, wallet, gui, etc.

Why are you hyper focused on enforcement? Nobody's talking about enforcement but you. Is this like a fetish or something? You're focusing on the wrong thing, bro. It's an utterly irrelevant distinction. It's a straw man.

Anyway, it's been fun. Last reply. Deuces. ✌️

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 6mo ago

I've already said I agree we need a consensus library and that we need multiple clients, my only argument is that Core is not a monopoly.