Nostr Web Client

Core is heavily centralized. Most developers are into shitcoinery and constantly want to push changes that benefits them. They prefer Twitter over Nostr and use Google Groups for their mailing list. They're so gone, you shouldn't trust them.

Knots is even more centralized—it's literally run by a single guy, who's a bit of a dictator. Fun fact, he blocked me after I critized him once.

I don't trust Core, Knots, Jameson Lopp (shitcoiner), or anyone really. I don't want to have to worry about which node implementation to use. Stop trying to change Bitcoin.

Bitcoin should ossify and only have necessary bug/vulnerability fixes and nothing else.

btcttombola 8mo ago

I completely agree with this.

#bitcoin has been created to be resilient and secure.

For all other experimental features, shitcoin already exists.

The only purpose of #bitcoin MUST be security first and resilience.

The evolution should only be to fix bugs and vulnerabilities, and perhaps one day fix the scale issue.

It is not good to open the door to other "unknow risks" with features updates.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Scoundrel 8mo ago

To me, zaps seem like that kind of experimental feature. Am I thinking about your point the same way as you?

btcttombola 8mo ago

perhaps, it is a good way to argue and debate.

Zaps are not built to be so secured because for example there is warning while using "mint".

Wwe must trust a mint before using it (how can we give trust without being able to verify?).

If you loose your zap 1000 sats = 1$

It is so important to over secure it for his usage ?

if you loose 0,1BTC = 10,000,000 sats = 10,000$

The usage and the scale is important to know if it worth change or not.

Zap is a good feature for entertainment and give some values to things.

But they are not built for huge exchanges that need real high security.

It is my point of view.

Thanks for yours too.