Bitcoin Core vs Knots is just a proxy

What we’re witnessing is a separation between cypherpunks/anarchists and authoritarians/statists.

This conflict has been brewing for many years, since the toxic maximalist meme somehow degenerated into the average Alex Jones supporter stereotype.

Started out with eating steaks and praying to God, then grew into loving monarchies and praising authoritarian politicians who best embody the description of a 19th century monarch.

Meanwhile, the nerds who want Bitcoin to be a neutral, censorship resistant & permissionless network became uncool and were left behind.

So now the radicalized faction is really fighting against its roots, trying to bring down the establishment that taught them everything they know about Bitcoin before the politics got involved.

There’s no way for the two camps to coexist, as their goals & vision are completely opposite. Just like the libertarians left in 2017 to support Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum, the authoritarians will also build their own safe space.

It’s unfortunate, but inevitable at this point.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

".. the libertarians left in 2017 to support Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum...". Can you elaborate on this? Makes no sense to me.

Anarchapulco, the New Hampshire libertarians and lots of these groups are no longer here today.

Now they support Monero, BCH, Zano, and other coins.

the original version of bitcoin maximalism would have prevented this

True. It would have made Bitcoin Monero (with Satoshi's proposed privacy upgrades) and would have slowly raised blocksize with demand.

Conflating neutral, censorship resistant & permissionless money, with neutral, censorship resistant & permissionless jpeg storage is where you fall on your face.

Just pointing out the precise reason nobody takes you serious.

All transactions are data. Optimizing to censor will never lead to growth or prosperity.

The statement commits the noncentral fallacy (also known as the category error or the worst argument in the world). It labels the act of filtering certain Bitcoin transactions as “censorship,” invoking the strong negative connotations of that term (typically associated with authoritarian suppression of free speech or ideas), even though the action in question is atypical of the category—more akin to spam filtering or network moderation by decentralized participants rather than centralized control over expression. The premise that “all Bitcoin transactions are data” is used to blur distinctions and amplify the loaded term, but it doesn’t logically establish the conclusion.