Then do it, but calling the position of people who are concerned with core currently "propaganda" and "hate" is shallow and counterproductive, in my opinion.
And the sword cuts both ways I've heard a core contributor calling people that disagree with them, cultists, and comparing them to cattle.
There is certainly a very vocal polarized set of people on both sides.
there has been an insane amount of hate directed toward "core devs", aka me and a handful of people. please don't lecture me about being shallow and counterproductive. all the core devs I know are extremely thoughtful when they consider changes, in terms of how it may effect decentralization and incentives.
seeing most of nostr attacking some of the best devs in this space that are working tireless to defend bitcoin against centralizing effects has been pretty disgusting.
Well, we can probably just, as they say, agree to disagree because I find the core developers turning themselves into some sort of priest class as disgusting as any of the stupid things that I've heard people on the other side of the argument, throwing out.
Again, referring to users of the software as cattle or cultists is disgusting.
And the people who run nodes and even the people who just use the software not only have a right to say what they think about the direction of the project, but a duty to. And I feel as strongly that name-calling and polarized shallow arguments from their side is just as bad. None of that helps.
All it is is an easy way to virtue signal and plant your flag on the side that you want to be recognized as being a member of, in my opinion.
i agree the debate is sane.
And perhaps it is a good lesson for future.
Words can have been hurting here, but people were angry about it.
Next time there is a concern about a point, the earlier the debate is, the better it will end (on each side, even if there is only one blockchain).
Of course devs have done a good job.
But i agree you can't say to node owners (that control the network) just don't ask question and stay quiet, we do the best for you, you don't need to understand.
Node are as important as devs and miners.
That's why they have to find a way to communicate before it become a drama. To avoid all this rage words or heavy silence on any side.
We aren’t smart enough to understand how wise it is to encourage shitcoins on Bitcoin
Obviously
This is unacceptable to me.
how do you stop paid contributions? contributions are judged based on the contents of the PR. just because its paid work doesn't mean it will be accepted.
I'm not sure you got the point being pushed.
these are all straw man arguments
Argument: "if you want an opinion you need to fund core devs directly"
Counter: "a lot of us donate to core devs, & we are the lifeblood of the protocol maybe our feedback is valuable"
"If our voices are not heard maybe we'll be forced to redirect our efforts"
There's nothing wrong with my perspective.
There's nothing wrong with adversarial conversations.
is there a point being made here? You are just describing market activity. by all means go pay knots contributors if you think it will create a more censorship resistant bitcoin.
How are you so sure you are smarter than a large number of core devs who think adversarially every day, to ensure incentives are aligned so that filters don’t inadvertently create more and more slipstreams, completely breaking bitcoins censorship resistance properties?
They are thinking at a different level than simply 80iq monkey jpg memes which don’t make any sense. But by all means if you would be rather manipulated by memes instead of technical arguments, then continue to harrass devs, spam memes, and support unhinged developers instead of supporting reasonable discourse on mailing lists, where this stuff is supposed to be resolved.
Maybe have some self reflection and realize this discourse is overall hurting bitcoin more than it is helping.
Your attitude is just as childish as the other side of this argument.
My PoV on this has nothing to do with the specifics of this exact change to Bitcoin...and everything to do with the attitudes of the core devs.
We are allowed to question you, you should have better responses that don't include crying about adversaries ripping you on the internet.
you keep lumping core devs together like they all have the same attitude. core devs are not a homogeneous group of people. It’s just so stupid.
“We are allowed to question you”. You can do that all you want, but no devs have to listen to you. Why would any dev listen to a bunch of people driven by social media campaigns and have zero experience within the project.
Your words are meaningless until you start actually contributing and have proven that you have thought long and hard about the actual issues.
We don't need words; We need Knots!
so you want a client decoupled from rational, technical debate (which ensures bitcoin continues to function with working incentives). Instead replacing it with ideologically driven hand wavey moral arguments.
To each their own! Maybe it’s fine to have a rational client and a more ideological client (knots). If it keeps the meme spamming, tinfoil hat, flat earther bitcoiners away from the github repo then that works for me.
You do you, we do we. All good, there is enough sats for everybody.
The point of having a functional alternative increases the quality of the technical debate.
You're being intellectually dishonest if you don't think so.
Also, if knots ends up having a diverse dev group like core that would be great & I'm sure you'd appreciate that.
To your last sentence, this is the childish bullshit I'm talking about.
You got me bro,
*some of the core devs including you*
...the rest continues to show a lack of self awareness so I'll leave it at that but....
man you guys gotta stop crying & pretending you're some altruistic bunch.
Narrative set by Mechanic and influencers jumped on the wagon. Hoped more people listened to bitcoin++ day 2 panels
But this PR was presented by core as “mostly unanimous”. How do you guys actually decide on this kind of issue? What’s the vote count for and against this PR? As an external I have no idea whatsoever.
In the debate core/knots presented on bitcoin++ we trust that the 3 core people who spoke represent the majority of core devs thinking, isn’t this the case?
