Discussion
Name one consensus rule that was not first introduced by a code change in bitcoin core.
No, that's a circular argument. Core implements consensus because it reflects what the network enforces. If Core pushed invalid consensus rules the network would fork or reject it. BIP148 (UASF) is a clear example: consensus enforcement came from users, not Core.
No u ♻️
BIP148 is an activation client. There was nothing to activate until core merged the segwit consensus changes. The code change in bitcoin core came first. That's my whole point.
You seem to be arguing from a theoretical perspective. I am arguing from practical reality. There is no trusted bitcoin client except for the original client, bitcoin core. Bitcoin core is a de facto monopoly until and unless they can isolate the consensus code into a library. It doesn't matter what your theory says because this is the reality today and it will stay this way until there is a path for alternative trusted clients to develop.
Core is a monopoly. A central chokepoint. Core developers can wax poetic about how they are a leaderless collective. This is all bullshit. Core, as an institution, is a chokepoint. The failures of this institution extend directly to the bitcoin movement. Bitcoin is at risk of failure as long as this remains the case. Ergo, libbitcoinkernel *should be* the most important priority for long term development.
Bitcoin core is a high status institution and suffers from the inevitable failings of such institutions. It attracts status seeking individuals who act to protect the institution (and their egos) from perceived harm. Like every other high status institution, core has fallen into the trap of tribalism.
The signs are everywhere if you take your blinders off. WTF is "team core"? If you're playing teams you're doing it wrong. I'm not on any team other than team bitcoin. Team freedom.
Codebases mimic their organizational structure. Core is growing super fast and I constantly hear the refrain that they need to grow faster. This is an obvious fallacy! The larger an organization grows the more ineffective it becomes. You can't outgrow your problems if growth itself is the problem.
See the conflict around the *obviously correct* move to split off the GUI and the wallet from the node software. Who would oppose this change? Status seeking individuals who fear losing their status. See the failure to prioritize new opcode development. The entire purpose of bitcoin is to enable permissionless self-custody. When folks try to promote new tools that enable better, easier, safer forms of self custody they get sidelined, ignored, and subjected to straight up obstructionism. See the myopic focus on mempool. See the constant and incorrect assertions on the importance of policy filters for mining pool decentralization. The bitcoin core institution gets so much stuff wrong! It's extremely frustrating to an outside observer.
The institution is showing signs of failure. How long are we going to let this situation persist? Well if history is a guide, it will persist until a crisis arises and the reality distortion field is shattered. Probably in the form of another soft fork war. 👀
I don't have a crystal ball, all I can do is call it like I see it and hope the right folks are listening. Someone's gotta map out the territory ahead and be ready to rebuild when it all goes to shit.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing core can do for bitcoin is to make themselves redundant.
No actually. You’re describing trust preference not a structural monopoly. Core holds trust because of review depth, audit history, and stability, not enforced control. Anyone can fork or reimplement consensus as BIP148 proved because consensus is what nodes run, not what Core ships. libbitcoinkernel may help modularity, but Core’s influence is earned, not imposed.
I agree, for the most part. We apparently disagree on the practical implications. Or perhaps you are just eliding all pragmatic considerations to continue the debate.
Core has a structural monopoly on consensus code. This is not an attack on core, it is an observation of reality. This is what happens when you yolo a prototype blockchain client into the world. The client is the protocol. Of course this monopoly is not enforced, bitcoin is volunteerism. It doesn't need to be enforced because the disincentive to run any other client is so strong.
Google doesn't 'enforce' their browser monopoly because they don't have to. They can achieve all their monopolistic aims with constant breaking changes. They disincentivize users from running alternative browsers to maintain their monopoly. Same situation as bitcoin, just without an evil corporation pulling the strings.
The disincentive to run nodes with alternative consensus code is a natural outcome of the design of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. Again, this is not an attack on core, this is an observation of reality. Stop playing teams, bro. It's net negative.
> Core’s influence is earned
A dubious claim since there is no practical alternative. Regardless, they are unearning it, IMO.
Incorrect once again. You’re describing inertia not monopoly. Core’s dominance comes from historical trust and validation not lockin or barriers. The disincentive you mention is risk-aversion not enforced control because any client replicating consensus behavior can replace Core if the network prefers it. That’s not structural monopoly that is voluntary coordination or nakamoto consensus.
Your only counterargument is to make a distinction without a difference.
> any client replicating consensus behavior
That's the rub. No client can guarantee a byte-for-byte replication of bitcoin core behavior. That's the reason core is dominant. That's why we need a consensus library. So all clients can run the exact same code and guarantee the exact same behavior when validating blocks without being forced to run the same p2p code, mempool, policy rules, IBD, template construction, wallet, gui, etc.
Why are you hyper focused on enforcement? Nobody's talking about enforcement but you. Is this like a fetish or something? You're focusing on the wrong thing, bro. It's an utterly irrelevant distinction. It's a straw man.
Anyway, it's been fun. Last reply. Deuces. ✌️
I've already said I agree we need a consensus library and that we need multiple clients, my only argument is that Core is not a monopoly.
Almost as much bullshit as meme reply with zero substance or rebuttal.