pull down to refresh
6967 sats \ 9 replies \ @south_korea_ln 1 May \ on: Can Someone Please Tell Me What is Going On With Bitcoin Core AskSN
They are being pragmatic about the restrictions in place on OP_RETURN not doing their job at keeping people from doing shit on the blockchain. Rather than burying their head in the sand and avoiding facing this reality, several core developers agree that it might be better to just remove the restrictions. This won't remove the shitty behavior, might even make it easier to do some of the shitty behavior, but it'll happen without all the tricky stuff the Bitcoin shitcoiners had to resort to to achieve their shit.
People don't like change. People ideological on what Bitcoin should be. Yet, they'd rather not admit that reality does not match their ideology, so they mad. People mad. Some people thrive on being mad. It gives them a reason to be.
Lots of vocal bitcoiners have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. A small group of developers making any decision can easily be interpreted as some shady backdoor deal. Especially if some have a common employer. To me, though, the simplest explanation is usually true: they are just being pragmatic about a problem, and propose one way to address it.
At least, that's what I got from all of this. I'm probably wrong on some of the technical stuff and even more wrong on the motivations of certain people.
Still, it looks to me like much ado about nothing.
Still, it looks to me like much ado about nothing.
Agreed.
Rather than burying their head in the sand and avoiding facing this reality, several core developers agree that it might be better to just remove the restrictions. This won't remove the shitty behavior, might even make it easier to do some of the shitty behavior, but it'll happen without all the tricky stuff the Bitcoin shitcoiners had to resort to to achieve their shit.
Why do you think the core devs feel this way? My understanding is right know its an option each node can set to opreturn byte limit themselves so removing the option seems worse than giving each noderunner a choice.
edit: heres a good answer to my question in another comment: #968369
reply
Thanks for the link to the other comment. Very instructive and much better explained than what I could have.
reply
People ideological on what Bitcoin should be. Yet, they'd rather not admit that reality does not match their ideology, so they mad. People mad. Some people thrive on being mad. It gives them a reason to be.
Yes. It's good to have these people around, sometimes they say useful stuff and their passion can be a powerful force. It's also useful to remember they're no different from any cultists -- they have a worldview, it constructs reality narrowly, they march forward in service of the cartoon they see in their minds, the end.
reply
For sure. Contrarian voices, ideologists, even trolls, are a necessary part of the ecosystem. They speak the uncomfortable truths, they prevent us from becoming complacent.
The truth is still that a project as vast as Bitcoin will always have people with opposing opinions. Two options: compromise or forking your own instance. IMO, compromise will be the prevailing choice most of the time. People unwilling to compromise will end up on the receiving end of what just happened. I genuinely thank them for their sacrifice. It's an ungrateful role. But it's an important role nonetheless. Yet, I'd probably be the one handling the stick, hitting said martyr, if I had the technical skills to contribute at the technical level, getting annoyed by the mental space the martyr is taking while I am trying to do my job the best I can.
reply
In my experience, it's easy to have tight ideology and principles and moral purity until you have to make something actually work in the real world with other humans. Once that happens, all those crisp ideals get squashed into a grey muck, or else the people nobly hurtle into irrelevancy or the grave.
I don't think I'm overstating it to say that btc existing at this point, at all, is a miracle. We'll see how miraculous it remains.
reply
The thing for me is, technically, they are probably right in this matter. But I agree with Mechanic about "directionality" and to me a big part of this is the horrible behavior coming out of Core. If this is the right move, just explain it, instead we are getting responses like "you're not a dev you don't have a say" and this high priest bullshit it's ridiculous.
reply
If it's cheaper to store data in the witness script, why would expanding the OP_RETURN limit stop people from doing that? That's the part I'm not really grokking.
reply
less than 143 bytes it's cheaper to put in op_return.
more than and it's cheaper to put in witness (at least that's what people are saying elsewhere)
the brc-20 stuff is in witness. if that stuff is cheaper in op_return (???) would it migrate there? how much space is it taking up?
reply