It's not hard to understand. Shitcoiners paid off some core devs to turn Bitcoin into another shitcoin. We should have paid the devs more. That's the free market at work.
Discussion
I also thought about this option, but was it really this simple all along? btc survived all this time when was enough to bribe a few devs at core to end it all?
Either core is right and this is actually good long term btc and we (opposition) are retarded, or they have been corrupted (but how? devs are already full of btc and rich as fuck, is there really no end to greed?)
Also, was btc this fragile all along?
Anti-fragility comes from constant push back to unwanted changes. If we become complacent and accept everything core devs do, while they tell us "this is too complicated for non-devs to have a say" then yes, it will be that fragile. The dev community seems to be very poor. They are constantly complaining about lack of funding (I don't doubt it), and there are great organizations like open sats that provide funding. But there will always be well funded VCs that can provide more than charities. Also when there is one dominant client (i. e. Core) and few alternatives, that is also a fragile situation. The main focus now imo should be funding for alternatives to core.
what do you think is gonna happen now?
1) nodes will push back and most of them will either move to knots or NOT update to new core versions that have this change
2) this change is actually not going to bring any issue and we are just too paranoid
3) this change will create spam attacks making it unfeasable to use btc for money transactions, and core will step back and re-instate limit of 80kb?
4) btc as money transactions is dead and it has been captured as a store of value only
I can't believe that the big banks/institutions that have started heavily investing in btc will let the price fall now. Or maybe this mess is a plan to make btc price bottom so the big guys can buy super cheap before really pushing it?
None of those exactly. I think there will be a lot more spam in the short term but that it will mostly be priced out due to demand for the monetary use case in the long run. This is one of the arguments in favor of the change, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think that a few concerned people will run knots but the vast majority will stay with core and update to the latest release. Bitcoin will continue to be the best money in the world, albeit with more spam. Shitcoiners will scam a lot of people and make a lot of money. Life will go on. My problem is that they are removing optionality that node runners currently have, and despite the confident claims to the contrary, this change is almost certainly going to have unforseen consequences. I will not run a node that takes away my ability to configure this limit. I might have been convinced to turn it off, but at this point the response from core leads me to think there is a hidden agenda. Peter Todd is coming for the 21M cap, and this is a stepping stone. But that's just my paranoid theory.