pull down to refresh
I think two things can be true. It does seem to me that Core was DEI/wokified but also that bip110 is a bad idea.
If I was somehow against the success of Bitcoin, I would probably try to play the both sides against each other (first trying to wokify the Core, then trying to convince the idealist BIP110 guys to rally against CSAM, and that it’s because Core was captured, then watch with popcorn in hand how the community fragments.
If I was somehow against the success of Bitcoin...
Good strat and all, but I really don't think humans need a genius nemesis having something against the success of their projects to stumble over themselves without an external nudge.
We're very well capable of getting in our own way regardless.
I missed that physics woo-woo post when you made it. It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always. I've been tossing around the idea of making a post about it to get thoughts from our local math proof nerds and lawyers.
It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always.
I had the exact same thought too. I am fairly confident Jeff does appreciate the nuance. But even so, it doesn't protect you from your own blind spots.
Not saying I found one, I'm not versed enough along the same chain of thought.
Jeff's biggest issue may well be that no one else seems to be into the same rabbit hole deep enough to challenge his work.
Voskuil is keeping quiet here because https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Spam-Misnomer . He's been plenty loud at questioning Bitcoin Core's motives.
Thanks for that link.
I wouldn't call it "insinuations of conspiracy" either. I've had plenty of interesting conversations with him that all left me with a new perspective. He does accuse Bitcoin Core of gatekeeping both the consensus code and funding, but I think that is kind of understandable given his project and that he wants people to take it seriously.
Voskuil doesn't feel the need to come out and badmouth developers
I do dislike it when he narrates different choices in tradeoffs, especially legacy ones, as incompetence. No one is perfect though, and when he does one can just ignore it, because it won't be a thing for more than a few hours.
I think that Jeff is right about the mechanic. I just think he's wrong about the players in this case.
I struggle a bit with this. Booth really damaged his credibility with me when he was promoting the Bitcoin is new physics woo-woo stuff earlier this year (#1438519).
That aside, I don't buy the argument that a specific developer was "planted" in Core by enemies of Bitcoin (gov'ts?) to...do something that makes sense to me.
I do think more heavily used and heavily reviewed implementations are a good idea, but it is not like Booth was trumpeting this cause last year (or even earlier when it was mostly unpopular -- I remember getting a lot of push back from bitcoiners for talking about libbitcoin in 2023.
On that note, I find it interesting that Voskuil, the leader of the libbitcoin project doesn't feel the need to come out and badmouth developers and accuse them vaguely of conspiracy to control Bitcoin. I think we could all learn a bit from the way he has navigated this debate.