I agree, showing every possible opinion is not the solution either. What makes Bitcoin interesting is that every change comes with trade-offs between decentralization, security, scalability. In both Bitcoin and politics, the tendency is often to keep adding more features, more complexity, and more layers. Over time, the system becomes so complicated that most people can no longer fully understand it themselves, or properly evaluate all the side effects of a change. At that point, we have to trust a small group of experts, or influencers. That is the point I see Bitcoin facing right now. If the majority of people can no longer independently evaluate changes, narratives become more powerful than reality itself. And that naturally leads to centralization, because a small minority gains disproportionate influence over the existing system and can shape it in ways that primarily benefit themselves. There is no real solution to this. The best approach is to keep Bitcoin’s rules as simple as possible.

Seems so. I don’t know him. I just read something a few weeks ago about a fork he wants to do.

Bitcoin was originally designed so that the network remains decentralized as long as all participants act in their own self-interest. But what happens when the perception of many users no longer reflects reality? In my view, the biggest attack vector against Bitcoin is misinformation directed at the different actors within the network, influencing whether changes are pushed through, or intentionally prevented. It is interesting to observe how nearly every large Bitcoin influencers end up holding the exact same position against the BIP. In many cases, I believe this is driven by fear of losing influence, reputation, or important relationships within the ecosystem. If we want Bitcoin to succeed, we need more large influencers with different views on important topics within Bitcoin.

Somehow true, but the block size limit is not meant to be full all the time. If no transactions need to be processed, that’s actually good, because the blockchain doesn’t grow unnecessarily.

Spam und NFTs gehören aus meiner Sicht nicht auf Bitcoin und waren ursprünglich auch nie dafür gedacht. Meiner Meinung nach wurde der Konsensus bewusst offen gehalten, während die Policy-Regeln der Nodes flexibler sein sollten, damit man auf neue Formen von Missbrauch reagieren kann, ohne ständig eine Konsensus Änderung zu brauchen. Die Policy-Regeln definieren, welche Transaktionen Nodes standardmässig weiterleiten, oder in den Mempool aufnehmen. Genau diese Regeln sollten eigentlich als Schutzmechanismus gegen Spam dienen und bei Bedarf angepasst werden können. Früher hat dieses Modell deutlich besser funktioniert, weil Mining und die Erstellung von Block-Templates wesentlich dezentraler waren. Da niemand wusste, welche Node / Miner den nächsten Block finden würde, mussten Transaktionen über das gesamte Netzwerk propagiert werden. Dadurch hatten die Policy-Regeln der Nodes realen Einfluss darauf, welche Transaktionen sich überhaupt effizient im Netzwerk verbreiten konnten. Heute ist die Situation anders: Die Erstellung von Block-Templates ist stark zentralisiert, wodurch sich die Policy-Regeln vieler Nodes teilweise einfach umgehen lassen. Dazu kommt, dass Bitcoin Core Policy-Regeln zusätzlich gelockert hat, was das Problem weiter verstärkt hat. Das Resultat sehen wir jetzt: Ein erheblicher Teil des Blockspaces wird inzwischen für nicht-monetäre Daten genutzt (fast 40% in den letzten 6Monaten). Wenn nichts dagegen unternommen wird, riskieren wir dauerhaft volle Blöcke, höhere Anforderungen an Nodes und steigende Kosten für das betreiben einer Node. https://fountain.fm/episode/FaCd19Cp5kTDaFddAYlO

In my view, that’s exactly why we need to take action now.

We as a community messed up too. If we had pushed back harder against arbitrary data during the OP Return, Taproot discussions, it would have sent a completely different signal to everyone.

The reason the financial system is the way it is comes down to greed. Satoshi showed a fairer system is possible. Many voices in Bitcoin lost that vision. Even if it stays small but decentralized, the vision survives. Anyone centralizing it to accumulate more is acting in self-interest. Don’t trust them.

From what I’ve read, this would also be valid under the rules of BIP110. Is that correct?

UPS-backed node and internet router. Running self-sovereign Bitcoin with my own Lightning node, managing channels, and ~1 PH of rented hashrate pointed to my node. That’s how Bitcoin stays decentralized.

Do you think the new Trezor with an open-source security chip is the safer choice?