Thank you! And I fully agree with your remarks. It is quite demanding to be a free user. On top of understanding bitcoin well, it requires paying attention, staying up to date, constantly learning and exchanging ideas on an individual level alone. But this culture does exist at meetups, bitdevs, conferences, seminars, telegram and signal groups. These are the people that really run bitcoin imo.

I'm always mindblown when I travel to a new place and find the local bitcoiners who are into the weeds of bitcoin technicals and we can have deep discussions about complex topics.

But it's also clear that bitcoin users are growing much faster than free users, so it's to be expected that there is also users who become vocal a tad too early while still on a false summit, and there is temptation to simply "decide what's best for them". I'm pleading we should try to resist that temptation as much as possible.

No regrets that I blocked a person who compares governance of a telegram group with bitcoin governance.

I think my perspective can be summed up as: the only formalized governance structure that bitcoin needs is the agreement that we should optimize for maximum user agency, so that individuals can run nodes and enfore rules ;-)

I agree with the points. It would be helpful. However, it is a move that needs to come from the current maintainers.

Ultimately, being a free user also means that you have control over auto-download behaviors and opt-out of implementations that do not represent your values.

Maybe archiving bitcoin/bitcoin is helpful. I don't think it's strictly necessary. We can have new implementations in new repos.

🧡

100%