Replying to Avatar MAHDOOD

“Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.”

Here is a list of projects that lost funding:

https://opensats.org/projects/showcase

These are all projects that could’ve been funded by the ark donation. Bitcoin core is only one of them. This future you want, which I also want, is not going to happen with the tools we currently have. Lightning still fucking sucks. Businesses still don’t accept bitcoin as payment. Do you think this future you want will happen without btc pay server and lightning improvements?

And if you think that more money going to bitcoin core will break bitcoin or create some type of bug, then it isn’t anti fragile money. Remember that you don’t have to update your node. The bitcoin core team can’t force you to use the version of bitcoin they want. It’s a free market.

That sucks, doesn’t it, that he didn’t fund opensats, but that’s a red herring and not the debate. Saylor’s issue is with unrestricted core development. He said as much in Livera’s podcast. ODELL implied that funding was offered but it had “strings attached”.

Lightning doesn’t suck. It’s just that you want to use it for use cases it likely can’t support with its channel-based architecture.

I too miss the good ol’ days when fees were low. We all knew that wasn’t going to last.

It’s clear that Lightning’s destiny is to be used by large institutions and federations. We, the plebs, will be kicked off to higher L3s and federations like Liquid, fedimint and ecash. Those federations will use Lightning to exchange with each other. Don’t blame me or Saylor. Satoshi made those rules when he set in motion fee increases on L1.

If you think bitcoin should be used as payment by businesses, you need to first understand Gresham’s Law and Thier’s Law. There is a natural progression and you seem to be trying to jump steps. There are no shortcuts. I’m happy to explain more.

Sure, bitcoin is anti-fragile, but only if we protect the protocol. It has a weak spot which is core. Read up on the blocksize wars to understand how close the battle was. We all came close to living in Craig Wright’s world.

Don’t gaslight me with the “you don’t have to update your node” bullshit. If you believe that, you don’t understand how software requires continual maintenance just to stay working. If we didn’t update our nodes, those nodes would die in a decade.

A free market has choice, and there is only one monopoly here, isn’t there?

I can tell your heart is in the right place but you need to start getting into the details. The core network needs to be protected and defended so we and our descendants don’t lose the gift Satoshi gave us. Don’t take its success for granted.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I can tell you’re making a lot of assumptions about me.

Like I said there are projects that would’ve gotten funding through open sats including those layer 3s like cashu. And more funding can help with the maintenance. But if you think core can be corrupted and that will hurt bitcoin, then it inevitably will happen. It’s only a matter of time. But if bitcoin is anti fragile, then core can’t destroy it.