I read:
> "unhinged"
or
> "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?
Bitcoin core is really the only legitimate implementation, even knots uses it
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" ?!?
Thread collapsed
If Bitcoin is going to be a thousand year project this will have to change
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
