Yes, it seems to me that Saylor must know that software maintenance is crucial and if devs stopped doing maintenance, then bitcoin would die within 10 years.
I think he must be arguing for no new features that could break the core system, and instead push all new features into the L2s.
I would like to hear the discussion to understand his full perspective.
Me too. Saylor and Odell should have a debate.
Maybe there are other reasons he doesn't want open sats to get ARK money.
Saylor doesn't like bitcoin payments.
Nostr and ecash make the lightning network a viable alternative to eBay, PayPal, and Apple Pay.
Mutiny uses nostr to make a Bitcoiner version of Venmo.
I can't imagine the status quo will be happy about this.
Opensats funds nostr development. The suits won't like nostr.
Nostr has the potential to change the world.
The USG doesn't like privacy.
Ecash is privacy.
Billionaire's probably don't want to shake the boat.
Nostr shakes the boat.
Saylor has the freedom of speech just like the rest of us on nostr. He's free to tell Ark whatever he wants. It's just not what I want.
Regardless, I hope Saylor and MicroStrategy fund bitcoin developers, but now that I think of it, it can't come with strings attached. It would increase the risk of a hardfork and might be construed as a bribe. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
