Nostr Web Client

This is overall not bad, imo.

My main criticisms to nostr:nprofile1qqszq6eh3h2gyyjc0647hhrykqzsnvd0gyhcgkd5s60lp6wp0usqpmcpzamhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuervwdhh27np9ekx7mq3x3s2u would be:

1) it propagates without nuances the "experts vs demagogues" false framing, which is mostly made up (the "Knots side" includes experienced developers like Luke or SuperTestnet, who are way more technical than some influencers on the "Core side" like Shinobi or Lopp, who are more skilled at popularization and mass communication, letting alone that Dunning-Kruger doesn't just apply to computer science illiteracy, but also to economic, social and legal illiteracy, which also abunds on both sides),

2) it completely misrepresents Citrea's involvement, depicting a bunch of literal shitcoin scammers as "legit", and claiming they "need" that specific encoding method (which they actually adapted just out of laziness and lack of care), and they are "hoping to move to less harmful methods", which they publicly stated they aren't even considering at the moment,

3) it omits a lot of nasty triggers by some influential people on the "Core side", which are imo at the root of the current division and drama: the "it isn't spam if it's valid or pays fees" nonsense, the "mempool policy are censorship" nonsense, the "spam filtering in Core never existed" nonsense, the vitriolic and obsessive witch hunt against important and good projects for Bitcoin like OCEAN and Start9, the gross mismanagement of the github repo, the fixation on mempool changes as a way to show dominance and regulate personal beefs, etc.

For the rest, pretty good. I agree with the overall takeaways:

- search for the truth instead of parroting the slogans of your tribe

- mine on OCEAN and DATUM (and maybe tomorrow SV2)

- run your node with your own mempool policies (I'm filtering "inscriptions" since 2022)

- keep looking for possible long-term mitigations to spam (witness discount removal soft forks, fast-to-update user-side spam-filtering policies outside of Core, etc.)

nostr:nevent1qqszfgrzvwe6qd597ejm7rl85hrw5y7yexkesle00dk3a8mtsm9vmvcprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv8g6nwq3qart8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqxpqqqqqqzmyx87l

Mike Beatty 1mo ago 💬 2

Yeah valid appreciate this!

1. True- I didn’t mean it to come across that way. I just meant I’ve typically found it easier to understand knots point of view

2. Yeah citrea seems like scum to me- agree this shouldn’t be the sole reason to do it. Did you see the other twitter post I shared as to other reasons? But like I say I still don’t pretend to understand all the nitty gritty of all of this

3. For the sake of this video I’m not interested in this. I just wanted to figure out if core 30 update was going to kill bitcoin. There’s so many nuances to the full core vs knots debate with people’s character on both sides called into question- and like I say I totally appreciate anyone who chooses either side, I see both sides, I get the frustration on both sides, but all the speculation is what seems to be triggering people. I’d love to see more objective handling of the whole mess

Appreciate this comment

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Tauri 1mo ago

> I just wanted to figure out if core 30 update was going to kill bitcoin

Short answer is yes, if we allow it. Long answer is much more nuanced.

Dave🐸 1mo ago 💬 2

It’s understandably difficult for Giacamo to stay unbiased against bitcoin core because:

1. Luke is his friend and is blames core for his “bitcoin theft”

2. Giacamo is on the board of Ocean (Luke’s company)

My 2 sats:

1. Why does Luke lie about “no data onchain before core V30” ?

2. why didn’t Luke raise the consensus change in 2023 when inscriptions started

If Luke is so technical, why didn’t he tell Mechanic and Ocean to keep this civil on the mailing list instead of brigading the core GitHub “work spaces” 🫠

Giacomo Zucco 1mo ago

I'd not restart numbering when listing different points: harder to respond.

1) It's true I am Luke's friend, and I'm biased towards him. But I'm also equally friend of, say, Peter Todd, and I'm also defending him personally. Overall, I think I have way more personal Bitcoin friends on the "Core" side. I'm not convinced it was a Core dev to rob Luke: I find it more likely it was the US Government, and that the FBI pointed towards Core devs to seed drama.

2) My involvement with OCEAN preceded the recent spam drama, and it was about DATUM and about the LN payout market (and about helping Luke, of course). I think the spam drama damaged the company (and my economic interests in it) a lot, but I fully understand it came from a place of principles, and I appreciate principles over profit, to a degree. I think OCEAN would be better off if this all debate didn't exist.

1-bis) He doesn't lie, and he doesn't claim that. He claims that data encoded before were "not sanctioned". I think this distinction is legally and morally meaningless. I think he's totally wrong.

2-bis) Because he agreed policy is the best place to spam mitigation. Consensus change is something he now wants due to the (imo absolutely misguided) CSAM scare.

[unnumbered]) Luke is very technical, and Mechanic was always pretty civil on the mailing list. But I find the two claims unrelated: Greg Maxwell is also pretty technical, and he has been not civil at all.

gsovereignty 1mo ago

It's refreshing to see something this reasonable, thanks Giacomo

Giacomo Zucco 1mo ago

Thanks for your answer.

About 1 and 3: fair!

About 2: I don't think Citrea was the sole reason to raise the limit, and I don't even think it was a relevant reason at all. See my response to nostr:nprofile1qyx8wumn8ghj7cnjvghxjmcpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqg8g6e7yxkj2tycyu9q59q8f2th7z7lyy48u5fu3d0mrl8mnu49t5s02kql2 here: nevent1qqst8sey22gvdacef3hj8naamfvdymy8kck0mz0407skgtx97myz80cw9u8aj. I think there are many, legit reasons to move from the old "policy as nudging" design to the new "policy as predicting" idea. I'm sympatetic towards LibreRelay, technically.