The real lesson of the datacarriersize controversy is the cultural divide between devs and plebs.
Discussion
Is bitcoin for the people or for the devs?
pleb philosophy is that you don't need a technical understanding of a system before suggesting changes to it. how is that going to scale.
I don't know anything about pleb philosophy. I do feel intentions and when people are being gaslit. Cant speak to the technical side.
Who's suggesting changes by the way?
You don't need much tech knowledge to understand Core is purposefully leaving Inscriptions exploit bug unfixed, which leads to the UXTO bloat. We need a new dev team, or beef up Knots team.
Don’t need a technical understanding to leave the thing alone
Core devs are pretty technically adept, but that didn't stop them from implementing thchange that started the feuding.
i've been a professional software engineer for 20+ years and have been following bitcoin core development since 2010. I can say for certain that you are incorrect. but what do I know i'm only an "expert". i will defer to retards who don't know what they are talking about.
Like he said, bitcoin core dev are technically competent, I would even say really competent and that's the problem. Bitcoin L1 needs maintainer not "builders", a builder cannot help himself, he has to build (add features). This is I believe very dangerous to have builders on the L1, builders should be on the other layers like nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk
this was not a "feature addition". it was a small incentive tweak to not:
- make mining centralization worse
- make utxo spam worse
- make fee estimation worse
it was a completely reasonable change that got blown way out of proportion
I was referring more to bitcoin core development in general since the last ~5 years, "features" get added or filters preventing arbitrary data get removed, thus dramatically increasing spam and even increasing utxo bloat. And it doesn't seam to bother core dev, because I believe a lot of them are excited about new possibilities of building on top of bitcoin with all this arbitrary data space available. I agree that bitcoin core V30 has gained too much drama for what it does, but I think the drama around core itself is well justified
No it’s not
Yes because devs didn't write knots. Oh wait...
Knots is only involved because everyone forgot btcd exists. This issue is Core implementing a unilateral change and opposition to that change.
How much of that divide already existed?
There do seem to be different values.
I see values and lack of values.
... also, that the consequence of a de facto monopoly is lack of accountability.
It's the Bitcoin community's fault that it was a de facto monopoly. We didn't develop different node software. Now it's a problem, and our only alternative is a cheap knockoff. We need more options.
Bitcoin core shouldn't be an implementation itself. It should be a library, containing consensus code, no more. No node should be "the standard."
Yeah. Ideally the consensus code would be in its own project analogous to the Linux kernel. Then, potentially many 'distros' - which include their own relay policy options - would be able to be built on top of it.
The entity currently known as 'Core' need not necessarily be involved in making that happen... other than as a source of reference for what is currently in the consensus code.
Agreed. This is actually one area that ETH has done a better job of than bitcoin. They promote client diversity and have at least 5 different consensus clients.
Is that one for each node in their network? 😉
I'm not promoting eth, just saying they've done a better job with client diversity. I don't think bitcoiners should completely dismiss everything shitcoins are doing. Yes, they are shitcoins, but there's nothing wrong with understanding how other systems and networks work. Five clients with balanced distribution are better than one, especially when that one starts behaving badly. We haven't promoted node diversity like we should have.