What do you think?

nostr:nevent1qqs9qlh0ga3zks5um0nsdztpul7mwzz93t968gyxpdwt27rsu998zrcprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0qgs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsrqsqqqqqpgvpdu7

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Maybe need more devs and better management on knots or roll back 30 on core and do some soul searching.

That makes sense. I see risks on both sides.

Just a plebs opinion but there are obviously a lot of people that are not happy with what core are doing and they simply go ahead with changes, having doubled down on position and throwing technical comments when the arguements against are philosophical rather than technical. They behave like they live in an ivory tower. Knots obviously has issues as well as per article. Seems evident that a single group should not dictate the protocol and any implementations should be well run and debated. Either that or ossify and build L2 & L3 out.

To see all these issues flaring up after watching the discussions on ossification last year certainty makes this moron slightly suspicious!

Bitcoin is fine as-is. No development needed. A group of developers going against Bitcoin‘s principles (ie being money) is an attack vector. The lack of features is the feature.

This seems like a valid perspective also 🤔

Exactly what I think. If it works, anyone trying to fix it should be considered potential bad actor. At the same time, core team are incredible. I'd love to see where things would go if they focussed on L2/3 solutions rather than all this lost human energy doing things that people evidently do not want

Changes should be very slow at least, I imagine.

Can you send value in a permissionless way, peer to peer?

I think core should read the title of the white paper and just consider it. One gets the impression Satoshi spent at least a little bit of time thinking about it