The problem here is not the idea of challenging Bitcoin Core governance. Debate is healthy. What kills the credibility of these projects is the execution. When you lean on large language models to spit out complex whitepapers full of jargon and diagrams without actually testing how any of it holds up in code or in practice you are building castles in the sky.
Bitcoin’s development history is littered with people who thought they could fork their way into a better future only to realize that the real difficulty is not in writing alternate nodes but in building community trust and sustained developer participation. A governance model is worthless if the underlying implementation is insecure or half baked. And throwing measurement buzzwords from every academic discipline at a repo does not make flawed statistical conclusions any more solid....
The problem here is not the idea of challenging Bitcoin Core governance. Debate is healthy. What kills the credibility of these projects is the execution. When you lean on large language models to spit out complex whitepapers full of jargon and diagrams without actually testing how any of it holds up in code or in practice you are building castles in the sky.
Bitcoin’s development history is littered with people who thought they could fork their way into a better future only to realize that the real difficulty is not in writing alternate nodes but in building community trust and sustained developer participation. A governance model is worthless if the underlying implementation is insecure or half baked. And throwing measurement buzzwords from every academic discipline at a repo does not make flawed statistical conclusions any more solid....