Wilya

Bitcoin is too important to be left in engineers’ hands when they don’t grasp how much their reputation matters. Mempool will fragment into competing default settings and operations . It will diversify until even the fewest assumptions hold. Exactly what "core" developers were trying to prevent.

Peter Todd is nothing like Satoshi Nakamoto ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Todd epitomizes the brilliant engineer: deep technical mastery, elegant solutions to defined problems. Yet this very specialization blinds him to systemic effects. Satoshi's genius wasn't technical—it was seeing the Byzantine Generals Problem as human, not computational. Where engineers seek optimal code, Satoshi created messy, resilient consensus. Todd proposes "obvious" improvements that risk hidden centralization. He optimizes trees while the forest burns. This isn't personal failure—it's engineering training that rewards solving problems within systems rather than questioning systems themselves. Bitcoin's strength lies in preventing any engineer, however gifted, from imposing changes through technical superiority alone. The block size wars showed this: engineers saw scaling problems with technical solutions; systems thinkers saw existential threats. Revolutionary systems need minds that think in incentives not algorithms, emergence not specification, antifragility not optimization. They design not for control but controlled chaos. That's why engineers like Todd MUST NEVER have central authority over Bitcoin. Their specialized neural pathways, perfected for bounded problems, cannot grasp the higher-order effects that make or break distributed systems. Innovation requires diverse approaches battling without any single voice able to silence others—precisely what Satoshi built, and what no traditional engineer would ever design. Let's keep Knots growing!