If we’re concerned about nation state attacks then we should be really pedantic about defining (and educating about) who is the “receiver” in this framework, and who controls the receiving.
Many people think they are the receiver, when they are actually delegating and trusting that responsibility to another party.
As a system, there’s actually pretty significant centralization around the most used receivers that people are trusting (exchanges, wallet service providers, etc).
I’ll also put aside my desire to clarify policy vs protocol changes for a moment to say: what the current debate seems to miss is that the RELEVANT receivers probably trust Core to a certain degree to make necessary changes and they will go along with it.
This is important to note if you’re concerned about nation state corruption because it’s way more plausible that RELEVANT receivers + Core (+ miners even) can be corrupted due to their concentration.
What I’m learning watching this debate unfold and seeing people spin up irrelevant nodes is that folks have no idea how the power structures actually work in Bitcoin… even less so what to do about it.
EricFJ / Eric FJ
npub10x…2g437
2025-05-15 13:57:08
in reply to nevent1q…rmj2
Author Public Key
npub10xvczstpwsljy7gqd2cselvrh5e6mlerep09m8gff87avru0ryqsg2g437Published at
2025-05-15 13:57:08Event JSON
{
"id": "74923b210fbd933dd3e51094ee8c4a6a45b56eab94fb67139f2ed1a5f295a198",
"pubkey": "7999814161743f2279006ab10cfd83bd33adff23c85e5d9d0949fdd60f8f1901",
"created_at": 1747317428,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6a80586c5357f8f1b63026fb54cbcac1993bc34f7ad98e9094b89170444cbc22",
"wss://relay.primal.net",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"d91191e30e00444b942c0e82cad470b32af171764c2275bee0bd99377efd4075",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "If we’re concerned about nation state attacks then we should be really pedantic about defining (and educating about) who is the “receiver” in this framework, and who controls the receiving. \n\nMany people think they are the receiver, when they are actually delegating and trusting that responsibility to another party. \n\nAs a system, there’s actually pretty significant centralization around the most used receivers that people are trusting (exchanges, wallet service providers, etc).\n\nI’ll also put aside my desire to clarify policy vs protocol changes for a moment to say: what the current debate seems to miss is that the RELEVANT receivers probably trust Core to a certain degree to make necessary changes and they will go along with it.\n\nThis is important to note if you’re concerned about nation state corruption because it’s way more plausible that RELEVANT receivers + Core (+ miners even) can be corrupted due to their concentration.\n\nWhat I’m learning watching this debate unfold and seeing people spin up irrelevant nodes is that folks have no idea how the power structures actually work in Bitcoin… even less so what to do about it. ",
"sig": "6ea6653f80dd85aaf3378b57c6086dbe76f701104f24da82ef37c93926d83cfb6fb820d20a80a586686c7e652904dcc9d42a99984340cb02b043699fabfb07ed"
}