pull down to refresh
I don't think that it matters, because the problem isn't actual decentralization, but an accusation of conspiracy. And that's impossible to defend against
The impression I'm starting to get is that many bitcoiners got into it precisely because they're conspiratorially minded, not because of sound evaluation.
You can see this bias towards conspiracy across bitcoiners in big and small ways. Obviously you have Kratter's ranting about chem trails and mental telepathy, but it's evident in smaller ways such as people's reaction to the Kirk assassination.
I am a little conspiratorially minded myself. And there can be advantages to it. But it is a tendency that I recognise in myself and temper with various strategies.
It seems some percentage of bitcoiners don't have this self reflection or the ability to understand the technical big picture.
I imagine eventually this weakness will be exploited and they'll sell their coins cheaply - similar to how the bcashers lost their stacks.
reply
The impression I'm starting to get is that many bitcoiners got into it precisely because they're conspiratorially minded, not because of sound evaluation.
It's always been a significant subset that perhaps I too am part of myself (though I'd totes stroke ego and add: mildly), and we've seen high agency people (nearly/completely) lose it over the years as further evidence to this.
I imagine eventually this weakness will be exploited
The red-teamer in me says it's extremely likely that it already is being exploited under the radar, and the theorist-red-teamer in me says that this entire drama is an exploit.
I'll probably come back to this later because lots to unpack, but I have a coding gig delivery to do today
reply
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.
reply
Yes! That would also be healthier than just all the pressure being on one repo.
reply
The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?
What are they responsible for in that time from the user’s perspective?
Inscriptions, forcing filter changes and now a 20% rebellion from the repo?
Inscriptions, forcing filter changes and now a 20% rebellion from the repo?
What is the track record that ya’ll are so eager to defend?
reply
The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?
Of those that have significantly contributed, they've mostly been around far longer than that.
What are they responsible for in that time from the user’s perspective?
It is very sad to me how the people who have fought tooth and nail to make bitcoin sound money, and who continue to do so, have people like you casually throwing around nonsense.
Your idea of what's going on amongst bitcoin devs is completely at odds with reality. That's what happens when you make pronouncements based something you read on social media. And then the devs waste their time refuting people like you one by one instead of actually improving bitcoin.
If you want to know who is attacking bitcoin, it's useful idiots like yourself. You've been successfully weaponised into an attack against bitcoin devs' reputation.
reply
If you want to know who is attacking bitcoin, it's useful idiots like yourself. You've been successfully weaponised into an attack against bitcoin devs' reputation.
💯
reply
reply
That is a risk factor which can only increase trust and decrease the amount of people verifying the software.
Unless you become a bitcoin dev yourself (i.e. write code, learn cryptography and the nuances of how bitcoin works) then you are trusting the devs. And even then, not everyone has the brain to understand that stuff - it is crazy complex.
So most people have no choice but to trust the communications of the general dev community. They cannot verify things for themselves.
Is this a risk to bitcoin? Yes. The masses can be convinced of some bullshit about bitcoin and people associated with it - just like what happens in politics. The same strategies used to manipulate political opinion can and are being used to manipulate people's view of what's happening with bitcoin.
In bitcoin's case, seems like it only takes one well-known dev to push a load of propaganda to cause a significant portion of bitcoiners to lose the plot.
reply
Unless you become a bitcoin dev yourself (i.e. write code, learn cryptography and the nuances of how bitcoin works) then you are trusting the devs.
Not entirely. There's a public, transparent process and the entirety of that process is what you could trust, instead of a set of people. You can read things and ask questions about what you see, voice concerns. I.e. even if you cannot understand all the code, you can see the discussions about the code. This is how I personally started out learning about Bitcoin, except back in summer 2013 it wasn't as transparent as it is now.
But the problem we have today is that it isn't as transparent now as earlier, say 1, in the final years before/when
laanwj was redistributing leadership either. As painful as that sounds when deep inside we all want to believe in decentralization, I know for a fact that I am not the only person that has interpreted the situation like this. There is a perception of regression, in the form of a moderated forum taking some info off the mailing list, the github org being more heavily moderated since recently and some clearly logged IRC chat communications (allegedly) being done in private offices.[..] a significant portion of bitcoiners to lose the plot.
Even though I agree that a lot of the stuff said is cringe and subjectively I find the narratives out there extremely retarded, there is still an underlying signal that should not be dismissed, imho. If underlying concerns about a reduction in transparency cannot be addressed (and I'm not entirely sure that public opinion is still salvageable) then indeed, everyone has to just trust the devs, and then we're worse off than we are today.
I'd expect that an outcome of "trust the devs" will only increase cults of persona. It will mean more polarization, and more scammers, like the scammer we shall not name that tried to gaslight the world's legal systems - or did we forget about that shit?!?
Footnotes
-
it is really hard to put a finger on when exactly the regression started. Right now I would say that delving partially replacing mailing list was my first frown, but it is very possible that I've forgotten about earlier lesser frowns, or that I at the time didn't frown while I should. All this is subjective, which is why it's so hard to talk about it without emotional barrages happening on the bird app (or even here on SN) ↩
The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?
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.
reply
reply
reply
I’m asking you specifically about the chain code labs employees.
No you didn't. Read your own comment: #1227740.
They all are paid by the same company, they work from the same office.
Naw bruh. If you would have clicked the link I gave you (I even put it on blame so you could straight move on to the commit authors for each key and not have to lookup pgp keys) and done some research you would have known the % of maintainers that work for chaincode. Takes... 20 minutes if you manually verify everything like a real Chad.
The problem isn't the funding, and you would know that if you would just do your research. Don't take my word for it! Go check it out yourself! Reach your own conclusions! Be a king in the age of retardation!
You have zero concerns about that?
I have serious concerns about the echo chamber I'm perceiving; probably more serious than you can ever imagine. And because of that, and because we know we cannot tell people what to do, I agreed with you above that it would be good to have a third fork. So who are you arguing with?
reply
It was a different thread I specifically referred to the chain code employees.
Chain code seems to be the source pushing this filter drama and the apparent centralization there is a much bigger problem than default mempool policy.
I agree with you that we should have more implementations and luckily it looks like we are moving in that direction as a result of this saga.
Have a good day.
reply
reply
How is an “accusation of conspiracy” a problem if it isn’t true?
It's a problem because it makes being a bitcoin dev a horrible experience. If you want to improve bitcoin, you also have to accept death threats and people constantly trying to trash your reputation. This leads to less devs, less improvements to bitcoin, and means the chance that bitcoin achieves its full potential is reduced.
But hey, maybe we just let bitcoin stay as it is, it can enrich the Saylors of the world, and fuck the unbanked.
reply
Footnotes