Do you actually understand the issues in this debate?
I’m just wondering if you’re posting Twitter-like hot takes here on nostr for the lulz or if you really do see the world in a simplistic binary of people who hate bitcoin and people who don’t.
Keep in mind that these ‘takes’ polarize and harm the community and also could result in less support for developers.
I would understand these attacks better if Saylor was trying to get some personal business advantage.
Based on my read of the situation, Saylor just doesn’t want devs to screw up the base protocol. ODELL implied that funding was offered but with “strings attached”.
That apparently was unacceptable to these folks on nostr so hence the personal attacks and chaos that polarized and set the community against each other.
It sucks that everything got so polarized. I sense some regret by the people who caused it.
It obviously took a toll on some people and may have also set back the objective of motivating everyone to support devs. I guess we’ll see.
It appears to me, by accusing him of simping, you’re shitting on him.
Do you really think his perspective is simping?
Appears to be another casualty of community polarization 🤦♂️ nostr:note1fq6cke46zh7rl2xfrgf6t9es3x4lfsf8yvp5cnzevhkee7ackm4qzze32g
I found this podcast to be very illuminating. A good deep dive into the other perspective.
nostr:npub19pj6f0nc9q6xr26qe3g8m6xe3hwe0d6p6zcvf57cm3kayghjdj0slnlenu and I are at a toy store with #LittleMan. Caption this. 
Powell getting ready to bail out the banks 🏦
Just listened to today’s RHR nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx I thought you gave the “open source drama” topic good coverage for a short segment. I enjoyed and appreciated it, thank you. 🙏
Some comments / feedback:
➡️ ODELL, I heard the exhaustion and stress in your voice through out the whole episode. I believe your heart is in the right place and you didn’t intend all the chaos.
➡️ That Saylor’s conversations were happening behind closed doors, that we shouldn’t be “reading tea leaves” and that we should “just ask Saylor” and have the conversation in the open:
It doesn’t seem like there was any attempt to speak to Saylor before the chaos, to steelman his position (until I just heard Marty do that on this podcast 👏), or to do a deep dive into the matter. Unfortunately Jack and other respected folks started posting ad hominem attacks pitting the community against each other.
➡️ That Saylor’s possible view is a “strawman” and 99% of developers are not trying to softfork bitcoin.
This appears to be misrepresenting Saylor’s intentions. Saylor’s view as presented on Livera’s podcast that he was worried about core and softforks. And it seems, from ODELL’s earlier post that he was trying to do strings attached funding. Presumably to prevent softforks and to focus on maintenance.
It seems to me that Saylor is not opposed to funding devs, but he wants to make sure his money doesn’t go to break bitcoin.
➡️ That “you have to manually update your node” and “devs are not in control”.
This statement is not the whole truth. Devs have enormous power because there is only ONE core software. To illustrate, consider inscriptions. The community fought hard for 1 MB small blocks. Did you know that we would have 4 MB blocks full of spam jpegs? I sure didn’t. How did that get in there? The whole community was surprised when huge jpegs started appearing in blocks. It snuck in and now there’s nothing we can do about it.
➡️ That “If you don’t provide developers with no strings attached funding, they will do low integrity options”.
I don’t know where to begin with this. It just isn’t true. Do you really believe that we can’t pay people to do security audits and software maintenance only?
I don’t know if you realize that you’re polarizing the community and likely reducing funding by reducing morale and goodwill. For many people, the natural reaction to seeing all the ad hominem attacks and simplistic hot takes will be “GFY”.
Let’s fix this. I think it starts with deeper long form discussions. It’s possible that Saylor won’t talk to you in public. He might view it as risky to his stock price to air dirty laundry. We might need advocates to properly represent the ossification perspective.
Anyway the RHR was a good start. Please build on that momentum. 🙏
I’ve had some success pointing out to people that these spy systems are bigger than them. They may not have anything to hide, but these spy systems give immense blackmail power over CEOs, politicians and judges.
Do you want Supreme Court judges to be blackmailed?
If they can spy on you, they can spy on them.
I find it strangely surreal to see people I respect like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx, nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m and nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp continue to post and repost hot takes which essentially amount to ad hominem attacks on the community.
It’s like the bitcoin equivalent of identity politics. It might seem virtuous but it polarizes and undermines the community.
I too find it strange that people here are mischaracterizing what Saylor is saying and seem to prefer personal attacks rather than discussing the issues.
“Saylor hates devs!”
“Saylor is a spook!”
“You’re a Saylor shill!”
“Saylor wants to break bitcoin!”
🙄
It’s like I fell into bitcoin middle school. I’m hoping we can start thinking critically again.
That appears to be a comment by the author rather than made by Saylor.
Are you saying that you believe Saylor wants to stop work on bitcoin core so that he can sell an alternative core software created by him?
Yes, it seems to me that Saylor must know that software maintenance is crucial and if devs stopped doing maintenance, then bitcoin would die within 10 years.
I think he must be arguing for no new features that could break the core system, and instead push all new features into the L2s.
I would like to hear the discussion to understand his full perspective.
There are no software as a service providers here. The devs don’t make money or charge people for using the software.
The meaning of software maintenance is different in this context. It means the work that you have to do to keep the software running on newer operating systems.
For example, let’s say that Apple upgrades their MacOS operating system. There may be changes that the devs must make to the core software to keep it running on the newer Macs.
Saylor is not arguing that devs stop software maintenance. If software maintenance stopped, bitcoin would die within 10 years.
Saylor seems to be arguing that new features should be added to L2s to avoid breaking the core L1 network.
My bet is that the issue isn’t software development. I’ve been in software development for decades but still not as long as Saylor. Software maintenance is so absolutely crucial and fundamental to everything.
This caught my eye, but I would appreciate a deeper discussion by the parties into the key issues.
nostr:note1v5kuvykgge6f3r5mfesmwmwmcvwp0ahyasf6dlnp9medezs3x8qs3u5nl7
Lead adds that yummy umami flavor. Another reminder you just gotta stay away from all processed foods.