To say that you are just doing your job is the most agentless fiat behavior there can be. Reading up on all the information recently revealed about some core devs, I really get the impression that some people just did "a job" and were not even particularly interested in what it was. That does not sound like a novel movement that will change the world anymore. :-( #BIP110

There are basically three camps at the moment: Knots, CoreV30+, and Core29-, but on legacy sites like bitref.com/nodes, coin.dance/nodes etc. the latter two are counted as one and this give the impression that there are only two camps with a large core share. This however, does not reflect reality. So, if #ProductionReady delivers soon and people running Core29- are changing to this implementation then the fact that there are three camps will be reflected as such everywhere. That would be a good thing in the medium term.

Yes, they have to deliver something first. However they talked about another client for a long time. It is not a new idea.

With #ProductionReady in place, it will potentially be more difficult for the progressive people in core to softly force people to upgrade to the newest versions of their software as older versions of bitcoin core software are no longer patched. As a result, you will probably have three major players in the market, with progressives in the minority, and ossification will accelerate further. #BIP110

Yes, I guess that multiple options that involves more people may make this movement for less spam more probable.

If users who have not yet updated to >=v30 or changed to Knots switch to #ProductionReady, then the loss of market share for Core would be correctly reflected even on legacy node statistics sites. The loss is, in fact, far more than 50%. I mean, how can you count the people who refuse to update to the Core camp? That seems like a classic instance of lying with statistics. #BIP110

Getting accustomed to an existing codebase is a time-consuming endeavor in software development. The fact that the girls hired for DEI purposes struggled to produce anything useful for a long time underlines this point. Developing in the open (book recommendations: "Producing Open Source Software" by Karl Fogel, "Working in Public" by Nadia Eghbal) cannot hide politics or mediocre performance for a long time. In the end, everything will be revealed rather quickly, and forking the codebase is the result. #BIP110

If a miner is relying on the additional fee currently generated by spam, then such a company is doomed soon anyway. The market gets more competitive with every halving, and these companies are the weakest link and are therefore eliminated first. Why should node runners subsidize such a dying business? #BIP110

Are you using the remaining time effectively? I could imagine that a lot of shaky and scammy crypto businesses will be eliminated by uncertainty and price volatility in the fall. As an end user, you have to ensure that all your funds are in self-custody. Avoid centralized services like the devil shuns holy water. #BIP110

If you are against spam and against #BIP110, you can always propose a better solution. However, complaining and doing nothing is more of an obstruction than a constructive option.

Well, I never considered Coinbase an institution inside the community :->

The podcast appearance of Giacomo looks like a smoke screen maneuver: a long-term maxi is openly criticizing #BIP110 and then later the host sarcastically asks if he is now a shitcoiner as well. But there are connections here: Todd. Older Twitter posts and shared appearances at meetups hint at a personal friendship beyond their professional interactions. //cc

Hm, Adam Jonas, the little Epstein that actively corrupted bitcoin.

In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA4T-66itoA , and made fun of the unusability and impracticality of running nodes of other chains, but I did not hear any thoughts about the fact that this could happen to bitcoin, too. Why do they not say the obvious and come to the only possible conclusion? #BIP110