> Now, do you agree with me that forcing a change and taking away options from node runners (even if is the right technical thing to do) is not the correct method of action?

No i don’t agree with this. removing dead code that doesn’t actually do the intended thing is good software engineering practice. I am a software engineer of ~27 years, but i guess knots people would discount this because they believe experts don’t actually know anything(??)

I think mining centralization would be much worse if people went around the p2p network for tx submission, so i guess i also disagree with your last point as well.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I have zero skin in this game over #knots or #core, but damn do I love seeing the passion of the ones who do.

nostr:nprofile1qqsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3gpr9mhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5qs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsg7he34 is an OG #punk to the core. I believe in his vision and motivation🙌🏼

nostr:nevent1qqszlr2d8t2mnx2j8l0stw2ds7n0ae7rqnpgsukfa3xscmz2keg255sjfxvh6

I think we finally found where we fundamentally diverge! And here I don’t think there is any point in discussing any further, we simply have different opinions

Thanks for taking the time to engage with me man, really appreciate it. More discussion is simply what I wanted, not to persuade or attack anyone

Cheers and if you got any more questions shorts away, peace and love

You’re not listening. It’s about who chooses. Node runners choose. Collectively that’s called consensus. The fact that Core pushes a change unilaterally while only one degree removed is a huge risk. Luckily this was just a case of don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. And Core fixed it anyway. But what if they had paid them to undermine something severe.

Peter Todd was paid for this PR.

True Story

Also core devs were telling node runners “if you don’t pay you have no say”

Core lost the plot.

Their proponents are just thinking from a technical aspect and can’t see the big picture. Even when it’s “Mate in 2”

Judjing from core ppl counter-argument I also agree that core devs have simply lost it to excessive hubris/power tripping (which I don't know if it's better than having been corrupted....).

Another thing: I'm sure not all core devs are like this, but the ones who have been put "in the front" to publicly discuss core views on this issue are not amazing at engaging with ppl and carry out emotionally mature discussions....you can be a genius at coding and totally shit in other aspects (like communication and inter-relationship)

I gathered you also followed the whole convo I had with jb55, I honestly thought there was no point in continuing the discussion if he believes that forcing a change is the correct course of action (in bitcoin, where it's all about no trusting the experts and freedom of choice, allegedly).

I was hoping that he would at least recognise stratum V2 as a massive step in the right direction in fixin minining centralization issue, but alas 😟

V2 clearly is a more important step than relaxing some policy rule, which is also why Core 30 will ship a new mining interface intended to be used with v2.

It does the intended thing. Otherwise why remove it?

It doesn't do the intended thing, or at least not to an acceptable threshold within an adversarial network. So why keep something that does not really achieve anything for users when there is a measurable downside to performance?