New 4 year global liquidity cycle beginning as rates start getting cut all over the world.
Buckle up.
No developers are not the biggest threat to bitcoin.
They simply write code you never have to run if you don't want to.
One of the biggest ACTUAL threats to bitcoin right now is miner pool centralization and hardware centralization.
Bitmain still controls >50% of pool HP and >90% of ASIC hardware.
Also covenants do exist, just not on mainnet.
The problem is this isn't even the first time he's FUDed covenants.
>I just listened to his interview interview
Oh yah? How many red flags do you need?
1. He's advocating for scaling via centralized entities because he thinks L1 is done.
2. He compares updating bitcoin to updating the bible.
3. He conflates FOSS dev on bitcoin core with "big protocol" and calls it "central planning" implying it's not there via consensus
4. He implies bitcoin core does not understand the implications of their actions
5. He asserts that all changes to the protocol are "inflation"
6. He asserts that Satoshi "played god" as a reason why we should not update it further
And btw he's actively discouraging people from donating to FOSS bitcoin developers.
"Covenants don't exist" - Andreas Antonopoulos
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Really not sure why people are even associating facebook's "move fast and break things" with bitcoin.
Developers working on internet protocols like bitcoin DO NOT think this way and NEVER HAVE.
They understand the difference between a website and a protocol, unlike most folks out here it seems.
>You're using the fact that OP CAT isn't activated yet as evidence that it's a marginal idea. Ok.
No. I pay attention to actual developers instead of loud non-devs on twitter.
There's not even close to enough funding for devs to create "Big Protocol", also that's now how "Big Protocol" gets created, it would get created from government that creates "Big everything else". A terrible take when discussing FOSS and donations to developers of those projects.
What's actually concerning is how he's actively trying to lobby people against bitcoin core just like Roger did which started a civil war.
There's a few loud people on twitter pushing for OP_CAT but do you see it activated?
Nope.
Because most *ACTUAL* bitcoin developers are extremely conservative.
The problem is he's implying there's a "them" a "team" a "big protocol" and that they don't know what they're doing.
Because of this I can only assume in the future he may use this to try to gain favor to take control of the repo similar to what the NYA did in the blocksize wars and so I'm trying to caution people about this possible future.
Read the OP Again.
Literally everyone already agrees with the slow and steady changes that's not the dangerous part of his message.
What's dangerous is the false narratives that bitcoin core is "big protocol" and "centrally planned" and only ran by "12 developers" which is exactly the lies that Ver used to start a civl war.
He's implying that bitcoin core is "big protocol" and "centrally planned".
This is dangerous messaging as this is the exact lies Ver used to start a civl war.
I'm simply reminding folks to be cautionary of these specific types of manipulations.
Because what comes next is he'll want to take control of the repo the same way the companies wanted to during the block size wars.
Read the message again and then count how many times he says "big protocol".
Everyone wanted a change, they simply disagreed on what that change was going to be.
Small blockers wanted segwit, ver wanted bigger blocks.
He implies it, listen to this clip: https://x.com/TheBTCTherapist/status/1794590112984252465
Saylor's message is not "bitcoin should not change" or "bitcoin should go slow and steady".
No.
It's "bitcoin should not incorporate any new changes from these central planners called bitcoin core who don't understand the implications of their actions".
And that is dangerously close to Ver's messaging that caused a civil war.
So you're not going to address a single thing I said then and instead just call me a liar? I can see why Saylor bamboozled you so easily.
Literally no core dev ever wanted to "move fast and break things", this is the danger of Saylor.
He has the ability to bamboozle 95% of non-devs just like he did to you with this manipulate tactics.
FOSS development is extremely important to support and Bitcoin is FAR from finished.
No.
Comparing free open source development with a government and framing it as a bad thing is absolutely bad and needs to be called out.
He's already privately lobbied people to not fund further bitcoin development.
This interview is just the tip of the iceberg, we'll likely have to fight Saylor like we had to fight Ver if Saylor cannot be properly educated.
Bitcoin is software, if software is not updated it becomes less secure over time because there's always people trying to find vulnerabilities. Bitcoin has had several major network halting bugs fixed in its time that if left unchecked would have made bitcoin die many years ago.
As far as upgrades go if bitcoin is not upgraded then over time it will be replaced by something the market finds more valuable. This can take decades but the possibility is left wide open if it is not continuously upgraded.
This is basic software development 101.