pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 13h \ parent \ on: Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails bitcoin
This is a good observation. I think I would extend it though to say "there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine. But also getting worked up about it is pointless.
He says: "the only way to enforce that bitcoin stays money is if we enforce its usage as money at the social/mempool layer"
This sounds like EULAs to me. I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.
But also getting worked up about it is pointless.
If there is no alternative, then getting worked up about it is useful if you channel that energy towards building the alternative. Once there is an alternative, there is indeed nothing to be truly upset about.
I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.
I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere", simply because I think that the usage of bitcoin should only be enforced minimally in the consensus layer. The larger you make consensus' responsibility, the more problematic and potentially oppressive it becomes. I won't support any consensus change to limit currently available freedoms, even if that means there will be abuse.
Rigidity can be solved by running a pruned node + whatever filters you desire + LN, but running a full archival node will today, and in the future, require a sacrifice to the morality of the data you're serving. After all, Luke put scripture on the chain and I'm serving that.
reply
I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere"
Yes, this is definitely an improvement on what I said. It's also helpful for me to think about this in the context of freedom. Consensus being the minimum set of rules we all need to agree to in order for Bitcoin to work.
reply
There is another thing that was said in that thread, that sipa quoted and that I also liked:
the point of Bitcoin is not to take power away from a central group and give it to the people, it’s to take power away from the central group and give it to no one at all.
This is what I have believed about Bitcoin since day 1 (which is for me 2013.) I also have always held Bitcoin Core (in my mind, I don't really want to argue with maintainers) to exactly that standard, and although it didn't always succeed in the most precise definition of it, it broadly has1.
Footnotes
-
Note that now that @schmidty's PR is merged, it broadly has once more satisfied the "standard"; if that PR would have been closed, action may have been needed, and I was personally preparing for the contingency, to at least make patches and how-to-patch guides / guix builds, and maybe more, but I am really glad that it isn't needed. ↩
reply
There's a really great line in Lord of the Rings about Sauron and the ring:
He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream.
It works so well with Bitcoin I used a variation of it on a poster:
Thanks for the insights you shared. It's because of things like this that Bitcoin is endlessly captivating to me.