THE CORE DEBATE: MONETARY NETWORK VS. "BLOCKCHAIN UTILITY"
Bitcoin Mechanic’s Argument:
Bitcoin’s primary purpose is sound money, not a "general-purpose blockchain."
Polluting the UTXO set with non-monetary data risks bloat, higher fees, and reduced fungibility.
Jameson Lopp’s Position (Controversial):
Supports Citrea (zk-rollups for Bitcoin), which embeds non-financial data.
Advocates for Ethereum-like features, which critics say dilute Bitcoin’s focus.
WHY THIS IS A BIG DEAL
✅ Monetary Purists Fear:
Turning Bitcoin into a "Swiss Army knife" weakens its core value proposition.
Spam attacks (like Ordinals) already exploit block space, driving up fees for real users.
Corporate capture (via sidechains/L2s that demand protocol changes).
⚠️ "Utility" Advocates Claim:
Innovation shouldn’t be stifled; Bitcoin can "do more" without harming its monetary role.
Critics Counter: Ethereum already exists for this—why corrupt Bitcoin?
GITHUB BAN & CENSORSHIP CONCERNS
Bitcoin Mechanic was banned for suggesting Lopp’s stance might be influenced by financial ties to Citrea.
This raises red flags:
Is Bitcoin development being steered by investor interests rather than cypherpunk principles?
Should conflicts of interest be disclosed when proposing protocol changes?
BITCOIN KNOTS AS AN ALTERNATIVE
A conservative fork of Bitcoin Core that rejects bloatware (like Ordinals).
Prioritizes minimalism, low fees, and monetary stability.
Why It Matters: If Core devs keep allowing spam, Knots could become the "true" Bitcoin for purists.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FUTURE
Risk: Bitcoin could lose its monetary focus and become a battleground for corporate L2s.
Opportunity: If purists resist, Bitcoin remains hard money—while altcoins handle "blockchain apps."
#KeepBitcoinHardMoney ⚡
P.S. When they say "Innovation!", ask:
"Why does ‘innovation’ always mean ‘making Bitcoin more like Ethereum’?"
The fight isn’t just about code—it’s about what Bitcoin stands for. 😏🏴☠️
(P.P.S. Run a Bitcoin Knots node if you want to vote with your hash power.)
