His point is actually a good one even if you don't agree with his characterization of himself. Decentralize the devs. Homogeneity of thought is not good for resiliency.
If a problem is expressed, and the devs in lockstep ignore it, Bitcoin becomes weaker.
What does "decentralize the devs" look like in practice?
I'd certainly hope it's not Luke running Knots as a one man show...
It means more consensus valid reference implementations that are open source.
It mean if a dissenting opinion is raised in the Github repository for an existing project it's not Nack'd and the user getting banned from PRs.
It means the maintainers of a project don't lock and unlock PR comments when bugs are pointed out.
Things like that. (Also the "one man show" narrative is false or at the very least extremely misleading)
The people know the record. Dude torched his reputation and no amount of damage control is gonna help. Kinda sad
Okay, again I don't care about Luke's reputation (or Lopp's for that matter). I care about code. I don't need anyone's reputation to run code.
Sure, but the code is a means to an end. The reputation of people writing or influencing the code obviously matters.
Writing yes, influencing no. You can't influence good code into bad code. You have to write bad code. I don't care if Bill Gates coded bitcoin. If the code is sound his proclivities are irrelevant.
