Yes, also not clear what it is actually useful for.

I hate that people are platforming the opinions of scam coins as anything remotely trustworthy. This is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. OP_RETURN doesn't make it easier or cheaper for meta protocols. Similar with that Vitalik quote that gets thrown around every now and then where he claims that Bitcoin's hostility to data embedding left him no choice, but to develop his own scamcoin. You can't trust these people with anything they say, even if they confirm your own narrative.

Parker's position is very unclear to me to be honest.

Reposting my answer to the same question earlier this week:

Maybe we'll have to change our expectations for acceptable number of confirmations, maybe nothing changes. I think things will not change significantly for users. Fees now already reflect how long you are willing to wait to reach an acceptable level of finality. If we want faster finality we will pay more to miners, if not we'll pay less.

Maybe we'll have to change our expectations for acceptable number of confirmations, maybe nothing changes. I think things will not change significantly for users. Fees now already reflect how long you are willing to wait to reach an acceptable level of finality. If we want faster finality we will pay more to miners, if not we'll pay less.

Yes!

It's actually still very accurate.

The Western Cape is definitely africa lite, ha (I grew up about three hours due north from Mossel Bay). I'm happy you found your adventure enjoyable so far. My family never lived in a gated community, so can't really talk to that, but building a bit of a community with your neightbours is definitely important anywhere in SA. I hope you get to drive around the country a bit too.

The steps you laid out seem correct to me for any non-consensus breaking changes. Should be important to additionally note that no PR gets merged without at least a few ACKs from established contributors.

What do you mean with this? That these are just rationalizations from developers onto what a strict filter policy attempts to achieve?

I don't think it is that new, but you are definitely correct that lightning helped shaping it into that direction. What do you think its primary purpose should be?

Nice article, I hope we can at least take some lessons from it. What is clear is that the over reliance on "rough consensus" is not scaling well, and it is questionable if it ever did. It's next to impossible for what you call "the free user" to follow along with the relevant stuff anymore. Too many forums, too many people trying to capture their audience, and few resources capable of distilling what the respective developer groups want and intend. In my view this makes multiple implementations inevitable. I just hope this doesn't lead to serious breakages down the road that might lead to trust being broken in a serious way.

Heh, granted it sounds snarky, but I do have a decent inside look at these orgs. Obviously there is bias, e.g. chaincode are unlikely to fund an alternative client, and there's probably a bit of not invented here syndrome with each of them

Some of the grant orgs are working on their own implementation or funding other implementations already. E.g. vinteum funds floresta, 2140 is writing their own rust swiftsync client with their own p2p stack, and there are others like opensats who publicly called for people to apply for grants to help develop knots.

I have intimate knowledge of the decisions they make and regulalry communicate with their respective teams.

Is this is a stab at "the new gen" of devs? Many developers from prior eras remain, are among the most actice contributors and shaped much of the debate. Devs by and large are not annointed by NGOs, they show up, do some work, then apply for grant funding. Just as they have the past decade.

No, many from the the 2011-2013 era still remain and are among the most active contributors. glozow is the newest contributor among the maintainers, but the rest have been working on core about a decade plus now and have seen through major changes to core in that time period. There has not been a big generational shift, it is a very gradual process.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I am in favour of a future where different clients are in a mad max like standoff, constantly trying to out compete each other, optimising for different use cases and targetting different audiences. It's great to see people seriously thinking about this.

In my perception Bitcoin Core is the most decentralized it has ever been since the Gavin days.

I guess you don't hear it, because it is not easier on the hardware.

Wow, coindesk is really an absolute rag. OP_RETURN does not get the witness discount, so the max is the legacy block size of 1mb.