Thread

This is pretty common sentiment among most serious people i know working in bitcoin, this is steven who works on Ark. every dev i know in lightning also seems to have the same sentiment. Pretty odd that the opinion β€œcore is destroying bitcoin” doesn’t come from almost any serious person in this space. It’s almost as if it’s completely manufactured from influencers and podcasters, preying on people new to bitcoin who don’t seem to know how bitcoin works. image

Replies (56)

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.
didn't hear about knots until now, so I did a quick search and all the tech journaly articles make it sound like a 50/50 split with core not caring about spam and knots being the rouge saviour project (my impression after skimming) what I really liked about the original bitcoin paper and now the development is how it took incentive engineering serious and thinks about social lines of attack. Interesting to see all the new attack vectors being tested (legal, mass media etc) and bitcoin still standing. quite the feat
↩ replying to Peter Todd
This is the dirty secret of the shitcoiners among Core devs and supporters of no filters and spammers. They want spammers to do as much money they can with their scams and they hope that economic incentives will at some point in future solve the spam and CSAM problem. Shitcoiners are disgusting. Also their "hope" may be just as retarded plan. image Bitcoin is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Freedom Money and Greatest Store of Value We need to run Bitcoin Knots to keep Bitcoin free of spam and decentralized View quoted note β†’ View quoted note β†’
Tauri's avatar Tauri
By the time monetary activity is able to outbid the casino, the blockchain will be turned into a dumpster fire of random files, so no one will run nodes, and Bitcoin will be as exciting as the next shitcoin. I signed up for the β€œseparation of money from state” not the β€œmerging of money with Epstein’s friends”.
View quoted note →
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.
↩ replying to jb55
you said this: "Pretty odd that the opinion β€œcore is destroying bitcoin” doesn’t come from almost any serious person in this space. It’s almost as if it’s completely manufactured from influencers and podcasters, preying on people new to bitcoin who don’t seem to know how bitcoin works." and were just disproved... by AI making use of actual thinkers and what they left behind.