I agree, for the most part. We apparently disagree on the practical implications. Or perhaps you are just eliding all pragmatic considerations to continue the debate.

Core has a structural monopoly on consensus code. This is not an attack on core, it is an observation of reality. This is what happens when you yolo a prototype blockchain client into the world. The client is the protocol. Of course this monopoly is not enforced, bitcoin is volunteerism. It doesn't need to be enforced because the disincentive to run any other client is so strong.

Google doesn't 'enforce' their browser monopoly because they don't have to. They can achieve all their monopolistic aims with constant breaking changes. They disincentivize users from running alternative browsers to maintain their monopoly. Same situation as bitcoin, just without an evil corporation pulling the strings.

The disincentive to run nodes with alternative consensus code is a natural outcome of the design of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. Again, this is not an attack on core, this is an observation of reality. Stop playing teams, bro. It's net negative.

> Core’s influence is earned

A dubious claim since there is no practical alternative. Regardless, they are unearning it, IMO.

No u ♻️

BIP148 is an activation client. There was nothing to activate until core merged the segwit consensus changes. The code change in bitcoin core came first. That's my whole point.

You seem to be arguing from a theoretical perspective. I am arguing from practical reality. There is no trusted bitcoin client except for the original client, bitcoin core. Bitcoin core is a de facto monopoly until and unless they can isolate the consensus code into a library. It doesn't matter what your theory says because this is the reality today and it will stay this way until there is a path for alternative trusted clients to develop.

Core is a monopoly. A central chokepoint. Core developers can wax poetic about how they are a leaderless collective. This is all bullshit. Core, as an institution, is a chokepoint. The failures of this institution extend directly to the bitcoin movement. Bitcoin is at risk of failure as long as this remains the case. Ergo, libbitcoinkernel *should be* the most important priority for long term development.

Bitcoin core is a high status institution and suffers from the inevitable failings of such institutions. It attracts status seeking individuals who act to protect the institution (and their egos) from perceived harm. Like every other high status institution, core has fallen into the trap of tribalism.

The signs are everywhere if you take your blinders off. WTF is "team core"? If you're playing teams you're doing it wrong. I'm not on any team other than team bitcoin. Team freedom.

Codebases mimic their organizational structure. Core is growing super fast and I constantly hear the refrain that they need to grow faster. This is an obvious fallacy! The larger an organization grows the more ineffective it becomes. You can't outgrow your problems if growth itself is the problem.

See the conflict around the *obviously correct* move to split off the GUI and the wallet from the node software. Who would oppose this change? Status seeking individuals who fear losing their status. See the failure to prioritize new opcode development. The entire purpose of bitcoin is to enable permissionless self-custody. When folks try to promote new tools that enable better, easier, safer forms of self custody they get sidelined, ignored, and subjected to straight up obstructionism. See the myopic focus on mempool. See the constant and incorrect assertions on the importance of policy filters for mining pool decentralization. The bitcoin core institution gets so much stuff wrong! It's extremely frustrating to an outside observer.

The institution is showing signs of failure. How long are we going to let this situation persist? Well if history is a guide, it will persist until a crisis arises and the reality distortion field is shattered. Probably in the form of another soft fork war. 👀

I don't have a crystal ball, all I can do is call it like I see it and hope the right folks are listening. Someone's gotta map out the territory ahead and be ready to rebuild when it all goes to shit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing core can do for bitcoin is to make themselves redundant.

Except you can't run code unless you are confident it is compatible with what everyone else is running or risk forks which is not acceptable for businesses or most users.

And since there is no spec, no one can run anything that isn't based on Core.

Again, Core is aware of that and that is why the kernel library exists, but it is not ready.

It sounds like such a small number when you say it like that LMFAO.

Yes, you are right. It is probably less than 2,000 people that have switched. Seeing that there are probably 20,000 nodes running bitcoin, 2k is a start. We don’t have to change the world over night. We just have to start.

In the end… We all want the same thing and that is for Bitcoin to succeed. We don’t have to be republican or democrat for that to happen. We also don’t have to be on different sides nor different teams. We all want what we think is best. BITCOIN

Name one consensus rule that was not first introduced by a code change in bitcoin core.

No, the consensus at the moment is literally what Core does (which is not all defined), there is more than zero cases of separate implementations having accidental forks because they didn't do exactly what Core does.

The kernel library should fix this, but it is taking very long and won't be ready any time soon.

So to dig a little deeper… What you are saying is that Core’s code reflects consensus rules that the core developers choose but don’t dictate that end users use core?

They don’t dictate, they implement changes aka force without approval.

#mynodemychoice

#bitcoin

#runknots

Not so sure about that.

The client is the protocol. If you want to stay in consensus with the blockchain your only choice for production grade security is to run bitcoin core.

Forks and alternative implementations are a LARP and they always will be until and unless the bitcoin core client runs a library to encapsulate consensus code. This is why I say that libbitcoinkernel is the most important project in bitcoin core. It's the only escape from the Bitcoin Core monopoly.

Consider an example: Google has a monopoly on browser engines even though people "voluntarily choose" to use Chrome. It's a monopoly because the alternatives are fucking garbage and everybody knows it. There is no choice. Only the illusion of choice.

With that being said. The few core devs that were debating for core must have really pissed some people off if they are willing to switch in the masses that we have.

You are right about that. Most of us want to run core just because it is what we knew first and was the most robust.

Core is like the hot girl that knows that you will never leave so she taunts you to leave by saying “we don’t only want you to run core. We want there to be other immplementations.” “You have a vote in what happens, but it won’t change anything.”

When I heard that…. I was gone.

So sometimes we must prove a point.

To be fair I was running both core and knots until they decided that they didn’t care if we switched. Then it was go time.

The code is open source just like Core, so I've looked into it just to see how many people actually contribute, and it's only Luke. Core devs may have checked out the github but that's quite different from seriously reviewing code.

The conclusion is to run the software that is the most robust, and that is Core.

Now that I think about it… How does anyone know how many changes Luke has made if no one reads his GitHub code? Maybe he only has made 1 change LMFAO. Just kidding man. These are just jokes, but engineered to make us say hhhhmmmmm. That is a great question.

Conclusion is still:

#runknots

#datum

#oceanmining

#Bitcoin

#mynodemychoice

Let’s be honest though. I bet many bitcoin core developers read the Knots GitHub to check if there are any mistakes or anything that makes sense to implement. (And wouldn’t hesitate to call it out if they found a problem.)

I know that I always check out the competition. Especially if I know them. I’m all over that! I’m watching film of their favorite plays, their major wins, major losses. I’m going to know everything about them before we play against each other.

It's kind of nuanced cause like yes Luke does import changes from Core that were reviewed by Core, but they were reviewed by Core in Core, not in Knots, so once that code enters Knots it's an entirely new implementation that literally only Luke updates.

I heard somewhere that Knots copied all of Bitcoin Core then added a few changes.

I shouldn’t believe everything that I hear on these podcasts.

I guess you can't fix stupid

If that's all you were able to take from that, then that's on you. I mean yes "you are dumb" was certainly there, but i also simplified your arguments so it would be clear to you why you are dumb.

Literally just broke down all your garbage arguments. Good job missing the point, you have a talent.