The Core people are astoundingly unserious.
Mockery and disdain toward the plebs from their ivory tower.
No professionalism. No sober educating of the masses to achieve social consensus. No patience.
Lots of ridicule and sadistic pleasure as they openly tout running v30. The vibe is “fuck you, haha!”
Is it just me?
Bitcoin is too serious to allow this attitude at the helm.
It’s honestly surreal. Clowns, clowns everywhere.
#bitcoin #core #knots
Yeah. I mean No, it's not just you.
they want to #exploit the #bloat. ask any of them why they want bloat, if not to exploit it for their own gain. I keep asking, they don't respond. #never30
Yeah, they’re a douche brigade. Totally asinine.
Bitcoin’s sole intent.
Let’s keep on task please.
People say the same thing about Linus, but the core people have guided Bitcoin to this point just as Linus has remained the benevolent dictator of Linux. “Social consensus” is basically you saying that code decisions should be made based on the number of people on subreddits you can get agreeing with you. This is not how sane development processes work. I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric before from Bcashers. They relentlessly said this shit for years to demand Core people implement suicidal policies that would have destroyed the decentralized nature of #Bitcoin. Bcashers also attempted to hijack control of the Bitcoin network by convincing people that they could “vote” by controlling more nodes (wrong, Bitcoin is defined by what chain has done the most proof of work). So the way #knots is operating is both rhetorically *and* operationally familiar.
#core developers, much like Linus, dealt enough with people offering “helpful suggestions”, absolutely moronic or intentionally malicious and subversive code submissions, and the armies of commenters thinking they know better than the people who have been around since the beginning. Back in the days of Bcash, they for a long time showed endless patience carefully explaining hunderds of times their decision making process. Eventually they tired of it and adopted the current and correct attitude towards people who think they know better.
This is not solvable.
Even if every core developer would be tested every day by a lie detector, would swear on their mother that they have honest intentions, abuse is around the corner.
People can be corrupted, black mailed, and what more.
We can't let this, probably, last shot at some human freedom be destroyed.
Thus we need to find a way to ASAP freeze the release.
New development can be done on other layer like LN did.
Bitcoin is hardly the chain for supporting human freedom. You’re maybe looking for $XMR. Or $ARRR if you are extremely paranoid.
Disclosure: I am banned from every bank, financial exchange, and social media service in the world. You can google my nick, I have been a lifelong target of the state. So I am at the forefront of knowing what technologies are best for a given mode of action and commerce, because I can simply ask if I can use them or not. And in most cases the answer with Bitcoin is a resounding “no”. If you are concerned about Bitcoin supporting human freedom, the Core developers are doing the right thing because it will potentially allow scripts large enough to use zk-Snarks. I don’t think Bitcoin is an appropriate chain to implement zk-Snarks by the way, but Core’s decision makes that more possible, and also increases the potential number of instruments that can be attached to the chain via atomic swaps, bypassing the need for regulated exchanges altogether.
Regardless, Bitcoin is providing a cornerstone of a much greater financial system, and the value proposition for securing the Bitcoin network will be asymptotically approaching fee-dependence as block rewards get smaller (and eventually disappear).
Regardless, this kind of apocalyptic rhetoric “LAST SHOT FOR THE FREEDOM OF HUMANITY” type stuff is not helpful. You are not writing this code, and the way that you talk about how the code is being written makes me think you do not have the appropriate technical competence to engage in these discussions.
Than write a book or website explaining why ?
Just disqualifying people won't achieve anything and perhaps even the opposite.
If people don't take the time to explain, defend, argue about their intended changes, they should not work on a project such as Bitcoin.
I understand they can't explain it to everyone individually.
So that's is why we need to find a way, book, website, where these things are explained in a way most people can understand.
My "apocalyptic rhetoric" is founded by a life time experience of governent abuse, ever less freedom.
I think just hoping everything will be all right and looking back at the last 50 to 100 years, probably way more, is more reason to doubt the sanity of a person than my "apocalyptic" view..
“You need to write a book explaining to reddit posters the reasoning behind your code submission” is an asinine statement by someone whose time clearly has no value at all. This kind of reasoning reflects everything I’ve said in this thread. I just explained why this is good for human freedom. Now I need to write a whole book for it! Nothing will satisfy you people. You are clinically deranged.
> “Social consensus” is basically you saying that code decisions should be made based on the number of people on subreddits you can get agreeing with you. This is not how sane development processes work.
I'm not advocating this. Yes, that is absurd.
People have their entire life savings in this tech. Core acts with callous indifference, and outright mockery. That is a problem for a cornerstone project.
They do indeed owe it to the Bitcoin community to thoroughly, and repeated explain themselves. Who do they work for? What's the point of being a Core dev if you don't give a fuck about the community, education and consensus.
The larger Bitcoin gets, the more people depend on it, the slower development must become - and the amount of time spent on education must rise to match the audience. You no longer just move fast and add features or change things without thoroughly explaining yourself.
> They relentlessly said this shit for years to demand Core people implement suicidal policies that would have destroyed the decentralized nature of #Bitcoin
I'm sure they were asking for features instead of ossification. Not comparable, as now it is Core *pushing* changes.
Not only changing the data carrier limit, also changing what it means and ALSO deprecating the option to remove the choice from the node runner.
Completely violating the spirit of Bitcoin: individual sovereignty.
> Eventually they tired of it and adopted the current and correct attitude towards people who think they know better.
"lalala, I'm running v30, haha, fuck you peasant!"
Is not the correct attitude. It never will be. If you take that attitude it shows you cannot even empathize with the very community you signed up to serve.
> "lalala, I'm running v30, haha, fuck you peasant!"
I don't think they’re saying this. The implied message is “we don’t have the time to develop and maintain Bitcoin and discuss changes with a mob of people on social media influenced by hysterical rhetoric. We’ve dealt with this before, back in the Bcash era, and it was only when we stopped engaging with this shit and pushed changes that it was finally shut the fuck up. Running the most nodes doesn’t determine what Bitcoin is. Core developers and miners are the consensus. Not people running a node.”
This is the truth. You don’t like it? You need to get more hash power. That’s Bitcoin’s governance model. Not solving blocks? You have almost no say.
I would go a little more down the rabbit hole, its not only core, its bitcoin maximalism culture that create the conditions to get to the point of no consensus.
Core smells really bad now time to change
déjà vu...
Ok but trusting one guy (knots)?
This is false. There are several developers working on knots. nostr:nprofile1qqszrqlfgavys8g0zf8mmy79dn92ghn723wwawx49py0nqjn7jtmjagpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7sujtmp proved this out a while back.
It seems to have about 12 active developers who deliberately contribute to it
That is a lot different from having 1 such developer, but it's still not enough to be safe imo
It is also good that much of the code is the same as what's in Core, it means a lot of the review effort put into Core helps Knots too
