Nostr Web Client

We’re probably close enough on 1 & 2 that we don’t need to split hairs :)

3. You could have just left out this point entirely and kept the debate in this thread technical and on-point. Instead you decided to insert a list of (what you perceive to be) bad behavior; completely unnecessary IMO.

But let me ask you a question then. What in your view has been a worse escalation:

A) _Anything_ any Core developer has said or done?

B) These accusations by Luke?

Giacomo Zucco 1mo ago 💬 1

I totally disagree it was unnecessary: I am convinced that it is exactly that behavior to explain a lot of the current situation of "anti-Core sentiment", way more than the technical point itself, which I consider, like the video author, a nothingburger. The video itself is ending with a (imo correct) analysis on possible social consequences, beyond technical ones. Thus I consider it unfair to blame me of "turning a technical debate social" if I comment this point.

My answer to your question, before the fork proposal, would have been definitely A: when the CSAM FUD emerged, a few months ago, the conflict was already since months at maximum possible escalation levels, with reciprocal bad faith assumption, very strong public accusations, github moderation abuses, lobbying to investors to defund Luke's mining project, bans from physical meetups, etc.

After the fork proposal, maybe B could be true, but not sure. One one hand, the fork is intended to avoid "sanctioned/contiguous CSAM encoding onchain" (which I don't think makes any sense, without a hard fork to also remove the not sanctioned/contiguous one already present, which I would consider overkill anyway with respect to the legal risk): Luke's implicit accusation of moral complicity by developers doesn't play a central role in it. On the other hand, it seems like many fork proponents think that this aura of moral complicity may be in itself a key reason for the fork success, so maybe it's B.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Aaron van Wirdum 1mo ago 💬 1

Other than watching a debate or talk when I was bored I ignored all this for a long time because I thought it would just go away. (As you know I was with you in that ordinals are retarded-- but I also didn't see it as some kind of fundamental threat to Bitcoin.)

But when the CSAM accusations started that was like a knife being pulled out during a pub brawl. A horrible escalation that could in some worst case scenarios actually be dangerous for both individuals and even the project as a whole.

Luke has always been "unique" but that should not mean ethical and moral lines don't apply to him. It's time to lower the temperature, but that is impossible if the _worst_ behaviour does not stop.

So when you do call out other behaviour but not his, that does not sit right with me-- or at least I don't think it's helpful.

Giacomo Zucco 1mo ago

I hope to have clarified why.

After our agreement about ordinals being retarded (and not a fundamental threat to Bitcoin), I couldn't really ignore the escalation, initially just because I got myself involved into OCEAN. Even if the entire deal of the pool is about miner-side template creation (which means they will be able to include everything they want), for a few day it worked using Luke's own default node, which is Knots, which was filtering out inscriptions (and incidentally also the >40b opreturn that the Samourai devs needlessly used to label pre-coinjoin txs in their terribly broken scheme). The option to switch to Core was added, as planned, a few days after that, but in that brief time the whole operation was targeted with nonsense "censorship" accusations (and even worse, for a coinjoin advocate, power-user and patron like me: accusations of sabotaging privacy practices). To this day, I still read stuff like Gmax publicly defaming the company, and I can't ignore it, since he's attacking me as well, in a way I consider absolutely unfair and unfounded.

Then I've seen the github abuses after the first PR by Peter (the one eventually closed down), which I couldn't ignore because it brought me back to some serious red flag about Core development organizations and processes (namely the infamous "blocklist" episode, but also other less public discussion I was involved in, regarding developers rejected from residency program due to their perceived politics, or a couple of "DEI hire" operations ended up with maintainers explicitly praising Buterin in public). I just couldn't ignore the gaslighting attempts of people trying to re-frame some history which I was directly involved in, or suddenly labeling as "crazy", "dangerous" and "against Bitcoin's ethos" the very same sentences about onchain spam that they would have written themselves just a few years before.

These two situations, combined, made it very hard for me to ignore the story as you did, and radicalized me enough to make a "Knozi" out of me, even if I fundamentally agree with Todd (who's a personal friend of mine just as much as Luke is) about mempool policies, and if I disagreed with most of them about the "existential" magnitude of the spam issue.

When the CSAM FUD started, I voiced my disagreement privately and publicly, without any ambiguity. When the contentious "UASF" proposal surfaced, I did so even more. But I still remain very concerned of all the rest. I don't think Bitcoin is going to die. I think the role of Core as the reference implementation we know may. Which is not optimal for several reasons.