related posts
61 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 22 Apr
All BIPs and soft-forks should be viewed as an attack on bitcoin.
One of the reasons why I like sidechains is because you can push all experimental designs onto those. For reference Liquid already supports OP_CAT natively...builders should go prove their designs there.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NIPPLENATOR 22 Apr
100%. No BIP should be introduced to the live network without extensive and heavy observation on a side chain. As smart as everyone is, no one can accurately predict all emergent behaviors of the system. I don't even want to see mention of a BIP unless its been running on a side chain for at least a year.
BIPS, speedy trials, and core dev's desire to continue bolting on shit to Bitcoin will kill it. Bitcoin is supposed to be layered, so why do we need to make changes to the base layer to support the layers above it? If those layers can't stand on their own with the network as-is then I don't know if modifying the network to support a new layer is the right path.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @nym 22 Apr
I don’t agree with everything Luke says, but I don’t think he should be removed just because some users want more exotic products on Bitcoin.
reply
60 sats \ 1 reply \ @pako 22 Apr
The reason he is leaving is because he doesn't have the time and he was the sole BIP editor for the BIP repository.
Also he rejected to assign BIP number to some proposals he didn't like, which is a problem, because it doesn't matter your views on said proposals as long as they comply with the process, the need to be assigned a number and then they can be rejected by reviewers if they are so bad.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 22 Apr
That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pako 22 Apr
Luke is losing his Christian super powers.
reply