Nostr Web Client

From the 15 years i’ve been interacting with bitcoin core development in various ways (some deep involvement like usdt tracing, but mostly on the sidelines and doing code review), i would say most review is purely based on reasoning in PR threads.

But if you are unhinged like luke your review weighting will tend to be less impactful. If you brigade a thread from social media you will not have much impact on the development process.

I think especially now, since core is starting to stand up against social media bullying that isn’t backed by technical merit.

The best way to influence bitcoin is to get involved the development process and make real contributions.

nostr:nevent1qqsxpml2sfz9up6uxm5xr682wwz70wakdmsc447vcmal3yszks33z7gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd3skueqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqygygv7ldj05fey7smzkf3vjy8324g7v7mwgeqdrfg6cjuql3xejy2qpsgqqqqqqsdhnghh

serapath【ツ】☮ 4mo ago

I read:

> "unhinged"

> "social media bullying"

Bitcoin is a large network and all users/minders/noderunners are stakeholders. Bitcoin Core is not the only implementation either.

To keep decentralization and not make it a company product, a change to bitcoin is supposed to get scrutinized.

You say there is no "technical merit", but i would love to ask you for links where to read about **why** core 30 is a positive change - thus - how it is supposed to achieve less centralization.

Keeping things without the contentious core30 "upgrade", seems it defends against CSAM and the negative image that can prevent ppl staying away from running nodes to not get prosecuted, thus leaving only big players who are able to run nodes and again filter content that will be e.g. CSAM to not get prosecuted.

But somehow you are saying the opposite is happening. How? Whats the argument?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jb55 4mo ago

Bitcoin core is really the only legitimate implementation, even knots uses it

serapath【ツ】☮ 4mo ago

That itself is a huge problem and should be self evident.

If there is only one company with one team developing bitcoin, it's clearly not decentralized.

Every implementation is legitimate.

People choosing which implementation to run is people (noder runners/miners) voting what bitcoin should become.

I can't even understand what world view is behind an argument such as "the only legitimate implementation".

Open source means forks are legitimate at any time and even fundamentally important in a network like bitcoin. Without it, we could all just literally continue to use fiat anyway.

Why would you ever even say something like "the only legitimate implementation" ?!?

Zach⚡️ 4mo ago

If Bitcoin is going to be a thousand year project this will have to change