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 (19)
Just shows even OG’s can get things wrong (in my opinion). Certainly not a reason to run Core 30 afaic.
Is this recent?
Yeah, must have just dropped because suddenly it’s everywhere.
Gotta get him on Nostr!
I wish.
limiting op return size is not censorship??
Running Knots v29.2 until libbitcoin-node v4 is ready.
Sick of anyone pretending these two groups are all we have to choose from.
When the mempool and the utxo set are all we can argue over, opt out of both.
Meanwhile, Andreas did a lot of good. He also wrote the book on Ethereum.
Satoshi himself could come along and an appeal to authority would still be a logical fallacy.
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.
Still seems to be missing the point..
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.
That line nails it: once devs can flip a censor switch, every regulator will demand it. Protocols need the can’t, not the won’t. Running Core is voting with your CPU.
He's a shitcoiner and so are you. By your retarded logic anything less than turning bitcoin into another ethereum is censorship.
