pull down to refresh

division is a result of those whose actions they are reacting to

I also don't see people apologizing, nor do I think they should. however it seems unlikely to me that we will defend ourselves from the state when a chunk of the people who are most likely to self custody and use bitcoin are all pissed at each other.

(it is my impression that it is only the people who are pretty deep in Bitcoin who have been concerned with the debate about spam and BIP 110)

Perhaps you are right that is is unrealistic that we will come together again. I'd at least like to see people focus on self-custody again and resisting things like kyc/aml.

108 sats \ 5 replies \ @Mechanic2 17h

My focus is always on decentralization at the node level. To me the approach taken by Core (and the industry in being largely unconcerned with it) represented a deviation from that priority and everything else is downstream of that. Decentralized mining/self custody/sovereign MoE usage (no KYC/AML etc) are all over if most people aren't doing this stuff with their own nodes.

reply

(i asked this elsewhere, but it's relevant here) why not just do smaller blocks? that would make it easier for people to run nodes and we clearly aren't pressed for blockspace...

reply
101 sats \ 3 replies \ @Mechanic2 16h

I want to do that too. But it doesn't do anything about the concerns about unacceptable media storage.

reply

when you say "unacceptable media storage" do you mean illegal media or a resource issue (too much data)?

reply

Neither, though you can assume the former. It's stuff that'd make me say "I don't want to run a node anymore" or even "I expect other people will trash their node over this".

reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @gollum47 16h

i've never checked what's in my blocks folder. there could be plans for an atom bomb in there for all i care. i have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of a bitcoiner who is willing to turn off their node because of the arrangement of bits in that folder. seems precious.

reply