Nostr Web Client

I think this is an important thing to grok - there is no reason Bitcoin Core should be bound by “consensus” for things unrelated to Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

Bitcoin Core is a software project with a wallet, a GUI, an RPC API, and an implementation of a P2P network for rumoring blocks and transactions. For all of those things, there’s no reason for Bitcoin Core to only act with “consensus” - can you imagine if they needed consensus of the community to make opinionated decisions in the GUI?!

But specifically on the topic of the P2P layer - Bitcoin Core contributors’ jobs are to be good stewards to that implementation and do what is right for Bitcoin to maximize decentralization and robustness. There’s no debate (except from people who don’t understand Bitcoin) that reducing or removing paternalistic censorial standardness limits is not only good but possibly important for Bitcoin’s long-term decentralization.

There is nothing that says anyone has to run Core, and there is nothing that says Bitcoin Core must only do things when there exists consensus in the broader Bitcoin community, especially when it’s abundantly clear those things are important for Bitcoin.

None of this applies, of course, to Bitcoin’s consensus rules - that sub-project of Bitcoin Core has drastically different constraints.

nostr:note1askf4s9h88qqa4zmu2cukjg6zsj3k0wg2cqkjcn5hncwm78sel0q3sw4ge

🍊💊⚡️🌽 7mo ago 💬 2

“There’s no debate (except from people who don’t understand Bitcoin) that reducing or removing paternalistic censorial standardness limits is not only good but possibly important for Bitcoin’s long-term decentralization.”

#Bitcoin seems to be doing a pretty good job without this so far……..

What’s the urgency?

Perfect is the enemy of good, fren……..

Not upgrading core on my node if op return is implemented in next release……

nevent1qqs97jaaku4vrl0ewvd43h7wxatjhhssu9pfpmq73ervcks8pxdfmmqpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcfkfp92

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Matt Corallo 7mo ago

Have you looked at the mining centralization chart? If that’s not cause for concern I dunno what is.

k03rader 7mo ago

Node operators have always been running at a loss. Perhaps it's time to stop calling our nodes "full nodes" unless if they are producing hash rate.

I will run an implementation that gives me control over which transactions I relay and I will point hash rate at my own block templates, even if I'm doing so at a loss.

As a node operator, I rather pay the price of mining at a loss to express my views on censorship than pay the price of wasted disk space and bandwidth.