I almost amended to clarify by fork I meant the project but at the same time you are making my downstream argument as well. We could end up with versions of software that could eventually diverge enough to interrupt the "lockstep" Satoshi wrote about @ BCT when the topic of multiple implimentations came up.
I agree that people running to a project being run by a single person has risks as well. But I reject your intimation that the only people competent enough to work on Bitcoin are already working on core.
Honestly, that kind of smacks of the arrogance that the community is interpreting from the people that are involved with core.
Which brings me to my final point. The fact that the community is up in arms about this may not be something that you and others agree with, but these are the people that run the software and some of them have been doing it for quite some time and some of them are also quite intelligent and not just people being led around by the nose by strong personalities or that sort of contention my perspective, this seems like the most serious issue of all. A fork in the community, if you want to call it that. I know that this is a new thing. In the op_return topic has had contention from the beginning. I was there. And many of the arguments being used today are the same ones that we're coming up at the very beginning and have continued to be concerns for many people in the community, many of whom are cryptographers, cypherpunks, programmers and prominent people.
I understand that this change is believed by its proponents to be the best way to actually reduce spam on the chain, the best middle ground, the best compromise.
But the way this is being handled has caused the community of users to lose trust significantly in the people leading the core project. And this should be alarming to all of us. Because in the end, that social schism can be the most powerful introduction of chaos and be more easily used to subvert the direction of Bitcoin than even a bug in the code.
m0053
npub1qk…x9qas
2025-05-07 13:47:33
in reply to nevent1q…n4rf
Author Public Key
npub1qktjyk0vdqlfss7wztawdnka5phx2p3vlvq50x0z402jk2fjhtnqlx9qasPublished at
2025-05-07 13:47:33Event JSON
{
"id": "91446fdf16e51d112f6b8408402f05c97818af12da1544746f9a422841296f20",
"pubkey": "05972259ec683e9843ce12fae6cedda06e65062cfb014799e2abd52b2932bae6",
"created_at": 1746625653,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4bbdb72ac1fdf9731b58dfce37572bde10e14290ec1e8e46cc5a07099a9dec",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a73732af53a0a9772df153dd1cb9e25e5981832bf09ca39dbb104e5510178e77"
],
[
"e",
"f55cdd0fece3595d654a0ecf80bf160d385fa4280f8aabf845488668e1621511",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dba46e07d8952745758252ec884328873bf388cfd45822ff2c6a6397c3a50519"
],
[
"p",
"05972259ec683e9843ce12fae6cedda06e65062cfb014799e2abd52b2932bae6"
],
[
"p",
"3d2e51508699f98f0f2bdbe7a45b673c687fe6420f466dc296d90b908d51d594"
]
],
"content": "I almost amended to clarify by fork I meant the project but at the same time you are making my downstream argument as well. We could end up with versions of software that could eventually diverge enough to interrupt the \"lockstep\" Satoshi wrote about @ BCT when the topic of multiple implimentations came up. \n\nI agree that people running to a project being run by a single person has risks as well. But I reject your intimation that the only people competent enough to work on Bitcoin are already working on core.\n\nHonestly, that kind of smacks of the arrogance that the community is interpreting from the people that are involved with core.\n\nWhich brings me to my final point. The fact that the community is up in arms about this may not be something that you and others agree with, but these are the people that run the software and some of them have been doing it for quite some time and some of them are also quite intelligent and not just people being led around by the nose by strong personalities or that sort of contention my perspective, this seems like the most serious issue of all. A fork in the community, if you want to call it that. I know that this is a new thing. In the op_return topic has had contention from the beginning. I was there. And many of the arguments being used today are the same ones that we're coming up at the very beginning and have continued to be concerns for many people in the community, many of whom are cryptographers, cypherpunks, programmers and prominent people.\n\nI understand that this change is believed by its proponents to be the best way to actually reduce spam on the chain, the best middle ground, the best compromise.\n\nBut the way this is being handled has caused the community of users to lose trust significantly in the people leading the core project. And this should be alarming to all of us. Because in the end, that social schism can be the most powerful introduction of chaos and be more easily used to subvert the direction of Bitcoin than even a bug in the code.\n\n\n\n\n",
"sig": "8998eeb1e6c49f0584953a047e11729638a3f2e12f959253dfe8b0e6cc7b32943ef5c76ae63a665f77426ef1576740751efca21ec2a0fb670e21e189cabdfc53"
}