pull down to refresh

It sounds like you believe we have to build an entirely different communication platform before we can do a good job of talking about Bitcoin (particularly, changes to Bitcoin).
I respect the thought you seem to have put in to the matter, but unfortunately, Bitcoin is here and now and we have to deal with the platforms that are in front of us.
In a way, I think delvingbitcoin.org was created as a place for the more healthy kind of conversation you describe (not that it includes any of the innovations you suggest).
Whatever the case, I don't see such a platform being built soon or the social media paradigm changing in the near future. We have to deal with what we've got. At the very least, we still have to make updates to Bitcoin software for the occasions when bugs are found or dependencies need to be maintained.
I still think it's worth trying to describe, given the current tools, what we think the process for changes to Bitcoin should be.
You might think you're being practical but you're really being naive, wholly underappreciating the scale and breath of the problem.
The entire scientific academy, including theoretical physics, journalism, politics, any technical field that doesn't touch grass and is deeply and directly consequential for a dependent public, is plagued by the same structural collapse in social consensus. They are running on pure inertia and the prestige built my men long dead (even bitcoin falls in that camp).
Yes, it's a big problem, but "given tools" aren't fit for purpose, and it's a waste of time to intellect to pretend otherwise.
Its existential. Bitcoin is a financial prepper's bunker in a age of entropy, of decay, of collapse. Core's conflict with users is a symptom of that disease.
You can't cure cancer with the pills you have in your medicine cabinet. You cannot throw a spear by putting two fingers on the tip and guiding towards your target.
reply