It's amazingly cringe arguing with non-developers about why ceasing work on the base Bitcoin protocol is retarded rather than a genius way to eliminate risk.
Discussion
As a non-developer, I would like to judge those non-developers you have been arguing with as retarded in a bad way.
Just tell them to install a 10 year old version of Bitcoin Core and keep their life savings in a hot wallet? If they refuse, you won the argument. If they don't refuse, they lose their stash and their opinion no longer matters :-)
Let’s cease work on amending the constitution
My spirit animal.
Is someone prominent arguing against maintenance?
I read your recent article on ossification. Thanks for that insight, very educating.
I had a question, and hear this from a perspective of me simply just trying to understand. Is there a definitive process to “declaring” ossification? Or is it something that just gradually happens over time? It would seem (based on my understand, or lack thereof) that the protocol will ossify naturally when it is ready to. Am I understand that correctly?
I assume that definitive ossification of any FOSS software is impossible. But would also like to hear from devs.
Ossification of software is impossible.
Ossification of network protocols is inevitable.
I'm not a Bitcoin dev, but I've built software tools for people and can code. Everyone knows that the systems like these always needs tweaks, vulnerability fixes, etc. Maybe I'm misreading, but my read is that responsible development should kind of follow a similar mantra to "first, do no harm".
I too find it strange that people here are mischaracterizing what Saylor is saying and seem to prefer personal attacks rather than discussing the issues.
“Saylor hates devs!”
“Saylor is a spook!”
“You’re a Saylor shill!”
“Saylor wants to break bitcoin!”
🙄
It’s like I fell into bitcoin middle school. I’m hoping we can start thinking critically again.
I didn't realize this was directed at Saylor specifically. I recall him talking about Bitcoin development and I didn't think was position was unreasonable - I interpreted his position as one of advocating for a cautious approach to development.
THIS. The discussion must be about ideas, not people. Plus, it's very funny that now bitcoiners feel so annoyed because someone thinks about his own business and interests.
I would understand these attacks better if Saylor was trying to get some personal business advantage.
Based on my read of the situation, Saylor just doesn’t want devs to screw up the base protocol. ODELL implied that funding was offered but with “strings attached”.
That apparently was unacceptable to these folks on nostr so hence the personal attacks and chaos that polarized and set the community against each other.
Exactly, in Corporate America the really bad outsourced IT resources (for decades it was India) were held to a totally different quality standard.
My entire career I'd lie in bed awake hoping I didn't break something with my latest patch, upgrade, etc. These guys were paid to essentially break things then hand the breaks to another outsourced "Production Support" group under the same umbrella.
Huge money to be made in prolonging the solution.
These guys just put in garbage and wouldn't fix things most of the time and break way more than they fixed.
We called it, "Fix Something, Break Something."
I am all for giving money to the right projects and people. That detail needs to be flushed out is all, down to the names and those individuals motivation to add to Bitcoin.
Are they pushing the BIP to benefit for themselves from: Ordinals/Inscriptions/Stamps/Ruins?/
Oh, I'll see myself out then.
Easy explanation: the road are done, should we fire all road workers?
Maintenance, upkeep, improvement
Is there a risk of devs being overpaid and therefore complacent, or trying to justify themselves with changes? What about undue influence, lobbying, and regulatory capture? There are valid concerns about who pays the devs, surely?
It's literally retarded. In the literal sense of the word.
What's the IBD time of, say a 4 year old version of bitcoin? Would be nice to graph this.
And IBD time is only one metric.
But dont you know Jameson, Bitcoin is a self updating system that needs no input from humans to survive! Durrrr.
(This was an excuse pulled directly from the imbeciles saying filtering out datacarriersize abuse incentives was censorship and anti-bitcoin)
If directing energy and resources towards Bitcoin developers is a risk to the network then it was never going to work.
Hell most of those developers are paid in bitcoin. So now bitcoin is a threat to bitcoin.
A very large number of these links do not work
https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks/blob/master/README.md?ref=blog.casa.io
Consider wikifreedia or some other more resilient storage. I really wanted to read about them
Not only developers run nodes, so you are going to have to argue with them if you want to convince them of your point of view
Thnx for your perspective from a retard 😜👍🏽
Sometimes developers might be genius at tech but dont have a cooking clue about money, history, philosophy and economics iow money. In fact , I think thats a rule. Techies like everyone , need to remain humble.
What "work" is done on the base layer? What risk is eliminated by doing said work?
I tried finding Satohi's final message. Found ths being his last message I believe. "I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone."
Did mean the devs?
You don't need to be a genius developer to understand this. It's just retarded people. Remember there are retarded developers such as those creating shitcoins.
Updating security on the base layer is different than enabling new features that can break it
Lmao, who is saying this?
Then don't do it.