@supertestnet making this list because he talked to 3 different people recently who plan to remain on Bitcoin Core due to their impression that a "consensus of the devs" favors relaxing the op_return filters, and that only a handful of technical people dispute this consensus. He wants to show that there is no such consensus.
By "technical people" he mean people who write or review code for protocols and apps that are (1) bitcoin itself (2) "on" bitcoin (e.g. wallets) (3) bitcoin adjacent (e.g. Liquid)
It's... configurable? What other 30.0 feature is controversial that is not configurable? txorphanage?
All this drama because Szabo came back or his acct got hacked?
My guess is it's him. He joined the board of Jan3 in January and his tweets have largely followed the line of Excellion.
Also Szabo's recent immigration takes seem to align with his pre 2021 takes.
I'm agnostic to him coming back or his account getting hacked.
#noheroesExactly!!!
Oh right now you are “slaying your heroes” because Nick won’t go along with your change?
Wow the cognitive dissonance is unbelievable
good friend, I challenge you to find the instance where I said anyone working on Core was my hero, or where I acted like Core developers deserve any special credence because of who they are.
I do believe they deserve credence because of their past work, just as I think Szabo is worth listening to because of his past work.
What previous work exactly?
The inflation bug? Taproot witness exploit?
Oh Mr. Smart Guy here…
My heroes? Nope. My change? Nope. Also I'm not achow.
You are supporting v30 so yes it is your change brother
It must suck to so desperately need a tree to bark up on, that you have to resort to this tree. lol
I'm supporting code review. Have you done code review, brother? Have you at the very least read the release notes? What's the non-configurable change and how is it controversial?
Make sure you mention all that to the jury for the cp distribution trial, I’m sure they will understand.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
https://xcancel.com/alpacasw/status/1976665904290365929
LOL now all make sense
None of you "technical" geniuses have explained what exactly is preventing this exact same thing from happening to bitcoin just like it did on BSV with the same code.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268
Nothing is.
And you think that’s just fine, and everyone should upgrade to v30 and there won’t be any problems?
Wow
It's not been there for 16+ years and it's not in knots either.
How's Szabo related to all this drama?
Ask him. https://nitter.net/NickSzabo4/status/1975805206031179831#m
I could've swore dude is nontechnical.
He is in the mining side.
I know he works for a company that does technical things, but it's disingenuous to call him technical.
I mean... a mechanic is technical right? Right? lol
lol
bitcoin or gold?
This may be a dumb question but I'm gonna ask it.
Consensus of what devs? Are people thinking there is consensus of core devs or just devs that build bitcoin ecosystem tools?
No, it's a very smart question, actually. And I don't know the answer. I'd personally not call this shitshow "consensus", but then, who cares? You can still configure it in any way you like.
People care if they care about Bitcoin.
Bitcoin-core being corrupt or compromised is a pretty big deal
Indeed...
I don't really like this kind of appeal to authority. The arguments should stand on their own. Yes, being experienced with the technical side gives you some more weight on technical matters, but Bitcoin is more than just a technical system. There are all sorts of incentives and game theory that matter as well, which is not traditionally the realm of programmers (which is what is typically meant by technical).
Engineers OFTEN have bad ideas. This is why the vast majority of apps/projects fail. Their code might be great but the idea is bad.
Indeed
Yeah, when consensus is used as a tool to shut up debate... that's no good.
Also no good is bad arguments that are hyperbolic. I've seen way too much of that in this debate.
It's missing Nick Szabo
Bitcoin development context and nuance matter as much as code itself...
deleted by author