core did not change bitcoin
the rules of the network literally did not change
Discussion
Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.
Nope. You're simply wrong. It did not change.
Aren't you a complete idiot?
Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network.
Cored devs - Bitcoin in 2021 is Money.
Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.
Even 80IQ plebs know that shitcoin core v30 (aka malware) changed the Bitcoin from the arb data perspective but nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 continues to deny that because obviously he is a CORECUCK
Am I too dumb, or am I missing something? I thought that if the majority of people refuse to upgrade to #core30 or decide to run #knots, then the nodes will simply reject the those blocks with the core30 #OP_RETURN increased values as invalid / violarong the prior consensus, keeping the #bitcoin #timechain intact. Thus, if core devs want to still be relevant, they will kinda have to reverse the change. No need of a #softfork; no need of a #hardfork.
#btc is freedom, and that means choice. The node-runners are free to choose.
The problem is that core30 adoption is growing quickly, increasing the risks of corrupting the BTC chain for all node runners.
I am using Clark Moody's dashboard (https://dashboard.clarkmoody.com/) where core30 is at 7.3%. Wow, that is fast adoption. Boy, was I wrong to assume that node-runners would choose not to upgrade. Let's hope that many would have manually configured the OP_RETUTN max value to the previous limit.
