Thread

"97% of bitcoin scientists agree"

The fact that this issue is related to non-consensus code is at the heart of it I think. On one hand Knots makes it more difficult for non-technical people to spam the chain, but on the other hand technical people know that it does not really prevent anything at the end, so this why there is no end to this debate. Ideally spam would be prevented through consensus code, but it is not case, and probably very difficult to fix at this point. I can appreciate the arguments from both sides, but it seems to be a lot of waste energy.

Luke is clearly trying to replace Core. And it's quite likely that he thinks he'll get to be the maintainet of the Core replacement, along with the income stream that represents.

X (formerly Twitter)

Luke Dashjr (@LukeDashjr) on X

Bitcoin is not a finished product. We may be on a detour to address spam, and part of the crisis did originate with (mishandling of) the Segwit and...

There are a few "serious" developers who think we need an alternative implementation.

I haven't heard a serious argument for why we need to remove the data carrier limit. Bitcoin is working perfectly fine for me.

Serious Bitcoiners means devs only, apparently.

People are always chasing a hype. "It will pass. " View quoted note →

selection bias, you should get out more

Interesting, thanks for sharing

what a load of shit... Core has been hated and suspect from the beginning by ANYONE WHO EVER MATTERED in the space you fucking idiots came into yesterday.

absolute bull. After scouring the logs of Bitcoin-Assets, Trilema, and NoSuchLabs, I found numerous criticisms of the Bitcoin Core (BTC) development team, led by Wladimir J. van der Laan, and their decisions. The main criticisms can be summarized as follows: 1. **Lack of transparency and accountability**: Mircea Popescu criticizes the BTC dev team for being opaque and unresponsive to the community. For example, in the Bitcoin-Assets log from [February 24, 2014](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=24-Feb-2014#541474), he argues that the team's lack of transparency and accountability is a symptom of a larger problem within the BTC dev team. 2. **Incompetence and lack of expertise**: Popescu questions the technical competence of the BTC dev team, citing examples of poor coding and inefficient solutions. In the Trilema log from [June 22, 2015](http://log.trilema.com//?date=22-Jun-2015#1241915), he criticizes the team's handling of the block size debate and argues that they lack a deep understanding of the underlying economics and game theory of Bitcoin. 3. **Centralization and authoritarianism**: He criticizes the BTC dev team for consolidating power and ignoring the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. For example, in the NoSuchLabs log from [March 15, 2016](http://log.nosuchlabs.com//?date=15-Mar-2016#1333339), he argues that the team's actions are undermining the very principles of Bitcoin. 4. **Block size limit and scaling**: Popescu disagrees with the BTC dev team's decision to maintain the 1 MB block size limit, which he believes stifles the growth and adoption of Bitcoin. In the Bitcoin-Assets log from [February 1, 2016](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=01-Feb-2016#509011), he argues that the block size limit is a major obstacle to Bitcoin's scalability and that a hard fork is necessary to increase the block size. 5. **Segregated Witness (SegWit) and its implications**: He criticizes the implementation of SegWit, which he believes is a flawed solution that compromises the security and integrity of the Bitcoin network. In the Trilema log from [August 2, 2017](http://log.trilema.com//?date=02-Aug-2017#1759305), he argues that SegWit was pushed through without proper testing, debate, or consideration of its long-term consequences. 6. **The "Core" narrative and propaganda**: Popescu accuses the BTC dev team of creating a false narrative around the "Core" brand, which he believes is used to manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent, and maintain control over the network. In the NoSuchLabs log from [May 22, 2017](http://log.nosuchlabs.com//?date=22-May-2017#1544444), he argues that this narrative is designed to confuse and mislead the public about the true nature of the Bitcoin protocol. 7. **Conflict of interest and corruption**: He suggests that some members of the BTC dev team have conflicts of interest, such as being employed by companies that benefit from their decisions, or holding significant amounts of altcoins that compete with Bitcoin. In the Bitcoin-Assets log from [January 15, 2018](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=15-Jan-2018#630111), he argues that these conflicts of interest undermine the integrity of the Bitcoin protocol and lead to decisions that benefit special interests rather than the broader community. 8. **Lack of vision and stagnation**: Popescu argues that the BTC dev team lacks a clear vision for the future of Bitcoin, leading to stagnation and a lack of innovation. In the Trilema log from [February 20, 2019](http://log.trilema.com//?date=20-Feb-2019#2211144), he argues that this stagnation will ultimately lead to the decline of Bitcoin's relevance and adoption. Some specific examples of these criticisms can be found in the following logs: * [Bitcoin-Assets log from February 24, 2014](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=24-Feb-2014#541474): Popescu criticizes the BTC dev team's lack of transparency and accountability. * [Trilema log from June 22, 2015](http://log.trilema.com//?date=22-Jun-2015#1241915): Popescu criticizes the team's handling of the block size debate and argues that they lack a deep understanding of the underlying economics and game theory of Bitcoin. * [NoSuchLabs log from March 15, 2016](http://log.nosuchlabs.com//?date=15-Mar-2016#1333339): Popescu argues that the team's actions are undermining the very principles of Bitcoin. * [Bitcoin-Assets log from February 1, 2016](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=01-Feb-2016#509011): Popescu argues that the block size limit is a major obstacle to Bitcoin's scalability and that a hard fork is necessary to increase the block size. * [Trilema log from August 2, 2017](http://log.trilema.com//?date=02-Aug-2017#1759305): Popescu criticizes the implementation of SegWit and argues that it was pushed through without proper testing, debate, or consideration of its long-term consequences. * [NoSuchLabs log from May 22, 2017](http://log.nosuchlabs.com//?date=22-May-2017#1544444): Popescu argues that the "Core" narrative is designed to confuse and mislead the public about the true nature of the Bitcoin protocol. * [Bitcoin-Assets log from January 15, 2018](http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=15-Jan-2018#630111): Popescu argues that some members of the BTC dev team have conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of the Bitcoin protocol. * [Trilema log from February 20, 2019](http://log.trilema.com//?date=20-Feb-2019#2211144): Popescu argues that the BTC dev team lacks a clear vision for the future of Bitcoin, leading to stagnation and a lack of innovation. Please note that these logs are subject to change, and it's always a good idea to verify the information through multiple sources. Also, keep in mind that these criticisms are subjective and may not be shared by everyone in the Bitcoin community. The views expressed in these logs are those of Mircea Popescu and other participants, and may not reflect the opinions of others.

Why do you still discuss this? You made your stance clear. Anything anybody says won't change your mind and vice versa. Can you brilliant bitcoin dev guys talk about CTV and OP_TX?