Do you stand to financially benefit from the OP_RETURN limit changes in Bitcoin Core, and if so, is this financial interest influencing your advocacy for these changes?
Discussion
Kind of a ridiculous question... I mean, if a developer truly believes that a certain pattern of SW development is "better for Bitcoin", and like most other Bitcoin Devs one has invested significantly in Bitcoin, than of course changes that improve Bitcoin as a SW project will "financially benefit" the developers. That's the point.
Are you implying some other form of (Fiat) monetary benefit to nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvdac8qtnnda3kjctv9uqzpaegm8nwwpyrtrnsjv84efjtp9mhpkvfenvxs487vx8d48y28qgxxgzsvk outside of the context of Bitcoin's (Fiat) price rising?
Chris is likely referring to my Citrea investment, which I've explained numerous times that Citrea doesn't need larger OP_RETURN to operate their protocol.
Thank you for the response, I’m going to push back a bit, you say that Citrea doesn’t “need” larger OP_RETURN. My question is more along the lines of does Citrea benefit from larger OP_RETURN?. To be clear, my intent is not to attack your character, but allow you to respond directly as this is a common criticism I hear. I see a lot of people talking past eachother on this issue . Then devolving into personal attacks and emotional appeals.
The answer you’re looking for is yes.
I’m less looking for an answer and more wanting an honest dialogue to occur. We may be past that though. Personally It doesn’t bother me if a person advocates for something that benefits them financially. It is certainly relevant to a debate though.
You won’t get an honest answer from him. Gaslighting and out of context half truths at best.
I haven't done the math in a while, but the answer is that the benefit is so marginal that it is effectively zero.
First off, we're talking about 160 bytes of data.
Secondly, it's only used if a specific dispute resolution process gets triggered. And the incentives are in place to make sure the validators try their best to prevent it from triggering. So it's expected to happen extremely rare, possibly never.
Chatgbt and grok both disagree with this statement.
So why don’t you just stfu about it if you don’t care people run knots?
(Spoiler: he cares a lot.)
The question is why?
(Spoiler: incentive)
🧡👊🏻🍻
🤙🧡
LLMs are retarded.
Here is post form sh who:
1. Is knots proponent
2. Knows what he is talking about (knowledgeable in bitvm)
🤘😂
🤣🤜
🗣️💨✨
🤙🧡
What a disgusting liar. Citrea started this shit with Antoine because they needed OP_RETURN bigger than 83 Bytes.
Great! We don’t need it either! 🙂
If it’s relevant to the debate then it can’t be “Ridiculous”. I assume nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0ksxxx2 does have Bitcoins best interests at heart. I’m not implying anything, I’m trying to clarify directly from Jameson a charge leveled at him.
Fair enough. I suppose I was a bit triggered by the "qui bono?" charge as it tends to get overused by liberals and left-of-center types to invalidate arguments by people who do, in fact, have incentives to see a system succeed monetarily, but in a way that isn't necessarily unaligned with the larger pro-social aspects of the project.
Thanks, I haven’t really followed the details of this debate enough to have a meaningful opinion. I’m sure nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0ksxxx2 has answered this charge already. I just haven’t seen a direct answer.
I understand it’s very easy to get “Triggered” especially once a discussion has already devolved into personal attacks and appeals to emotion. I’m confident the best Bitcoiners can stay above all that.
After reading Jamesons article on nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezucn4d9kxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsk233ah it brings up some important context regarding Luke’s history with core, security practices, incentives, beliefs, etc. related to the debate and decision making by node runners.
I have seen no evidence that Luke or Jameson are bad actors. Just men who are trying to do what they think is right for bitcoin.
I appreciated the article as an informational piece for my continued understanding of the debate and the people involved, hopefully leading to some kind of consensus and peace around the issues.