Thread

“If the developers are shown to be able to censor, then they will become required to censor.” Andreas the GOAT. He’s the reason I got started in the first place, and this is the final word on the debate as far as I’m concerned. Running Bitcoin Core 30. Not sorry, GFY.

Replies (37)

↩ replying to Keith Meola
Thank you! Wasn’t sure; context to the video wasn’t clear to me with regard to specifics. But that makes sense. Not a fan of adjusting defaults, but there is no clear option other than this. The other “options” available are to support a project with one ideological developer or stagnate. It’d be nice if there were more versions with deeper development base, but there aren’t. Just not going to wear a v30 button. That doesn’t make any sense either. 😔
Imo it’s not a matter of censorship. Core 30 changed and increased data limits and sizes that were set in the original code. It’s like trying to alter the US constitution in an attempt to “modernize” it. There’s some things that best left alone. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty firm on that belief.
I would expect nothing less from an ethereum promoter. Why even put a 100k limit? Let's go big! Let's do 1TB op_returns. Or even better, let's put infinite size op_returns. If an op_return limit is censorship, we've had censorship for a long time in bitcoin. The pruning argument is really bad too. That means no archival nodes. That means no electrum servers too. Really bad takes. But he's been doing those for a long time now.