Thank you for making me feel really old! 🤣

(disregard type errors)

They might not directly change consensus rules but their behaviour and communication paints a clear picture of "use our software, follow our rules or you don't use Bitcoin". That kind of attitude makes policy rules balance at the edge of becoming consensus rules. Their (core) arguments have been many, from unifying the mempool to make fee estimations easier, to more radical wording that any kind of filtering no matter what is censoring. I don't buy any of them as they all come out as words from an authoritarian leader who want everyone to fall in line. Having more than one client makes the network stronger not weaker. Just like the DNS system of the internet uses several different implementations of servers and clients and on nearly any kind of OS, so should Bitcoin. The miners already filter based on their beliefs and jurisdiction. Changes made by core might make it impossible for them to keep doing what they do, for good or bad. But if 80% of the hash rate falls off the network, attacking the it becomes much easier for a state actor and they for sure would like to create chain reorgs now and then and they would have the power to do so.

I'm incredibly disappointed in many OGs that I used to admire and now have fallen and are actively attacking the original idea of an alternative to the completely broken and corrupt legacy system. Peter Todd directly attacking nodes and software implementations he does not like. Other developers who said "run what node software you like" doing similar things. This kind of behaviour does not make Bitcoin stronger. It's ok to not agree on things but directly attacking people, their person and what they create is so far from a mature behaviour and only gives potential adopters incentive to stay far far away.

With all their name calling and denying it's only low level stealth 😅👻

Always good hearing from people with different opinions. Say hi to your VC friends from me!

The definition of a hard fork is loosening the rules. That is exactly what core is in the process of doing with version 30. Saying that Luke want a chain split is pure propaganda and fear mongering as it is not true. Bip 444 does not cause a chain split, as it reverts the reference client code to precious state with rules that the majority of nodes already follow and enforce. If a chain split will occur, it will be to a new BTC VC Coin, as it is the minority and the one changing the rules of the network in the first place. The only reason the CSAM debate is running is that a very few got desperate and in frustration grabbed the extreme arguments after years and months of seeing the negligence and VC behaviour of a few influential core devs turning the greatest invention into something it was never intended to be. The reason Bitcoin is what it is today, is conservative development with very few minor changes once a while. It is predictability. If people like Michael Saylor invest billions of legacy money into a project you do it because you have observed an asset with a predictable profit, not an asset that will change to something completely different now and then. Going back to the current heated arguments by a few even OGs. Had people reacted to the bips and civilized conversation over the years instead of blocking, banning and name calling like some have fallen to, we wouldn't be in this situation. Grooming devs to be able to piggyback on the network is a low that shouldn't be praised, but it clearly shows that everyone is for sale at the right price. Let's get the overall conversation and development back to what has made Bitcoin Bitcoin and not the thousands of alt coins and their philosophy.

Bitcoin talk is noise. The trick is to filter the noise and listen to the signal within. It takes practice, some swearing and eye rolling from time to time 😅

Yes ASIC boost was yet another issue bitmain created - a messy time it was back then. The UASF situation is, in my view, very similar to what we are seeing now and also different. Core 30 have loosened the rules allowing larger op_return effectively creating a new kind of Bitcoin, whereas bip 444 suggest reverting that to the old and keep Bitcoin a purely monetary network not a ETH 2.0. Then there's knots enforsing the old rules wanting to do the same but in a slightly different way. Whatever happens, thank you for engaging in this conversation. It's refreshing talking to someone who actually have historical knowledge.

I've been saying that for years. Very refreshing hearing someone else saying it, too. There's a film which title I've forgotten, where the plot is an alien race visiting earth to see if we have been able to get better and as they realise it's not the case they begin removing humans and all their creations, sparring everything else. It's the best solution I've seen so far.

Exactly. They (bitmain, antpool, Jihan Wu and co) did because of UASF. After they realised their proposal/attempt to change Bitcoin to a centralised big blockers network was never going to succeed. The UASF showed that the majority of nodes do decide what will happen, not the few and purely monetary nodes and miners. I was there, too 😉

Not surprised by their actions by now. It's a closed group, VC fanboys only, no access unless you know the secret handshake and speak as the mighty overlord.

So instead of having a small opening to misuse you expect opening it up completely removes the problem? Like removing speed limits on roads? It's a flawed statement. One used over and over without solving anything. That plus Lopp openly saying that the reason is "a use case by Citrea": to be able to broadcast and instantly verify information/data without waiting for it to be included in a block. If the miner centralisation is the/an issue that people actually want to solve, then support things like small miner projects. Bring back the original idea by Satoshi, one miner in every home. That would be a place to start. Remove the incentive to pool everything together like in most centralised blockchains controlled by one or a few large entities. Work on making bitcoin what it was actually created to be: an alternative to the flawed legacy system. Money for the people not the banks.

Block 923023

Was this a type error or am I missing something? https://mempool.space/tx/34bcced7ee78c7f1eb33251e50b8d6ef5dd107e1ddcb20da15f7ce57edc84d6f?mode=details