how is he wrong? bitcoin is a meritocracy. if you have not contributed to bitcoin in any way why should anyone listen to you?
Discussion
bitcoin is not a meritocracy.
it is a currency.
and technically development contribution is not required to have insight into its value, or how to maintain its freedom.
bitcoin is defined by its implementation, if anyone could change it and convinced everyone to run it, it would change bitcoin. then that would be the new definition of the currency. if we want to maintain its current properties, then it is by definition a meritocracy that maintains that.
if it is never updated ever again then sure, but its still the product of this meritocracy.
you know i agree with you.
im just wary of how corrupted elite groups form.
Mechanic has not contributed code, but you can’t say he hasn’t contributed. So if you want to be technically correct you can be, but this is a moot point for me.
So let’s take this in stages as I understand it, and I’ve only listened to Mechanic and read Antoine’s summary and listened to people like Adam Back and supporters.
Mechanic was not blocked on GitHub until this OP_RETURN discussion came about.
There is a disagreement, this isn’t a technical discussion, this is a functional discussion. If you don’t listen to people who disagree with you, you fall into a hole that has no escape.
I’m a node runner, I don’t choose to allow an unlimited size OP_RETURN, I am changing all 3 of my production nodes and both my test nodes as I write. I may not have understood this fully from the Core side of the argument, but they choose not to engage with people like me, so I’m not hearing their argument.
If Bitcoin core doesn’t convince the 20,000 to 60,000 node runners like me and we all switch to Knots, Core dies.
Jameson Lopp and Peter Todd become irrelevant.
