Discussion
nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0hvhj62 was one of the first people to take the correct side in the block size wars
So what?
Made a good decision, all his decisions are good?
🤔
anyone who has ever interacted with luke would not trust 100% of his decisions
No, my post was a direct reaction to the post I was responding to. The meme is bullshit. That's what I'm trying to say. Not "all of Luke's decisions are good." Luke gets too much worship and deference from some knots users, imho. (Core also gets too much worship and deference, and I'm glad that's changing.)
It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.
Sorry, but it really makes sense to compare both:
It's again another power grab trying to build support using same kind of arguments (FUD) against Core.
And when I say FUD, I'm referring to things like:
The large and important difference between these 2 situations is that on one occasion you have a side trying to push a major change (big blockers who lost on the social consensus front) and on the other, a major change that has already been pushed regardless of any social consensus. There’s no power grab, it’s just people against this change to op_return pointing out the issues involved with the relaxation of filters. Because core has already pushed this change and it looks as though it will be released in v30, the only way people thinking this change is reckless can voice their opinion is by running knots with customisable mempool policies.
What Luke is saying in that post you linked is that either:
- Core with this change and/or potentially future changes made in a similarly rash fashion could/will destroy bitcoin or at least make running nodes unfavourable for the average Bitcoiner leading to centralisation
- Or the bitcoin community will push back against core, diminishing core’s reputation and credibility to potentially nothing.
Personally I think the latter, as I think there are more bitcoiners who wish for it to remain as a monetary protocol rather than a JPEG database / cloud storage…
Let's see:
- Increasing the OP_Return limit is NOT such a 'major change'. It doesn't affect consensus. It's not even a soft fork.
- People wanting to store something in Bitcoin's blockchain already do it. Nothing is changing that.
- Making the p2p network to relay totally valid consensus transactions actually improves its decentralisation.
- The 'social consensus' you talk about just lives in your head.
- Arguing about 'potential future changes' is just FUD
- Don't like a client? Run whatever client you prefer. It's up to you.
- Luke is indeed positioning himself as bitcoin-saviour and leader. I've seeing this movie with other protagonists and it didn't end well for them.
🫂
*typo: "I've seen" (not 'seeing')
one wanted to change bitcoin, the other didn't want the change.
am i missing something?
Luke and Mechanic want to control bitcoin core software releases , because they don’t like how people use their own bitcoins
It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.
