Content
@
https://bitcoin.org
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
.
@chaskin.eth
Bitcoin got client diversity. Unfortunately, it also got a civil war starter pack. https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978545931600511157
6 replies
3 recasts
36 reactions
links 🏴
@links
I see this same argument playing out over and over in different places. A popular reaction which misses the values of the original, leading to short term happiness and long-term detriments. It’s kind of depressing.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
In what way is knots missing the values of the original? Genuinely curious, not trying to stir shit
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
links 🏴
@links
I’ll start by saying everything I know I read in the text excerpt from gmaxwell that was shared, so I am missing all context and probably latching onto it because I feel emo this morning. In the excerpt it SOUNDS like knots is discriminating against NFT/shitcoin traffic, and traffic shaping feels like censorship to me. This is against the ethos of bitcoin IMHO. Yes I understand every node can run their choice of client and that ability is also what makes the network neutral but the post just reminded me of instances where the popular opinion goes against core values of the thing.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
It's complicated — satoshi originally removed OP_CAT and made some other adjustments because it was used for spam/non-transactions. Later changes effectively made these things possible. Purists like Luke are operating on the theory that bitcoin should be for bitcoin, anything else is spam. I don't entirely disagree — but also I'd point out that things like block size, security budget, using zk proofs to compress blocks would all be very welcome additions, but without a solid leader to make these changes "in the spirit of satoshi", progress doesn't get made. It seems like Luke is trying to fill that role, and while he may not be the most charismatic sort (or frankly, not abrasive), it is imo a good step forward in trying to maintain the discipline that once existed.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
links 🏴
@links
I quite appreciate this explanation, thank you for writing it out
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Weren't those mitigations Satoshi did, including limiting the block size, were done with the intention of being temporary? Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be more than just for Bitcoin, so I'm not sure using this vision is a great justification for the level of ossification it endured. Clearly times are different now and the previous Bitcoin civil war has matured into many competing chains, so not sure how much it matters at this point aside from the security issues.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
