Thread
So I've been silently observing, but I don't think I've seen any evidence towards:
> and given enough incentives to bypass it (as we've seen exist)
The constantly unwritten thing here is this desire to enable these services like citrea.
Giving core the benefit of the doubt, the only "bypass" we have observed (AFAIK) is their willingness to use junk utxos.
Just as jpegs in the witness can be called out as temporary, so too can citrea's attack if we don't facilitate their desires. Both cause irreversible damage btw, increasing the cost to run a node.
Maybe the utxo bloat is objectively worse? Would be good to learn.
What is your thoughts on that.
Replies (6)
if there is an economic desire for these protocols to exist, the job of core devs is to make sure they do it in the least harmful way possible to decentralization. it's really that simple.
???
Absolutely not. There was economic desire to do everything that the shitcoins do and it was never the job of core to make that stuff happen either.
But also, even if it were the case. How do we measure the economic desire? We can't expect people to jump on board based on words and second hand observations.
If it really is that simple in your mind, then you must have some data?
Hearing one company say they will launch X is hardly data.
If this is all it takes then there is clear favouritism. They must be in favour of citrea specifically.
And IMO the data shouldn't come from entrepreneurs, it should come from the market. Until a product is launched, it is just an experiment. Let the entrepreneurs experiment and build a market and let that speak for why the nodes should change.
So this is a business now.
