Stuck my hand out the window of the car for the first time in a few years. One of the most nostalgic feelings I’ve had in a long time

I forget… does PoS stand for Proof of Stake or Piece of Sh*t? Jokes aside, the problem with PoS finally clicked for me. I used to think it was because it gave the richest people control over the protocol, which is true. But I think the main problem is that there is no opportunity cost for attempting to attack the network. You could attack the network by trying to reorganize the blockchain and double spending your coins. But you could also stake those same coins on the original chain just in case your attack fails. No opportunity cost. With PoW, the people with the most capital still have the most power over the protocol, but there is a massive opportunity cost to an attempted attack. First, you cannot own the coin and attack the network at the same time. Any mining equipment you own could have been bitcoin instead. Also, an unsuccessful attack leaves you with a ton of electricity cost and nothing to show for it. This connection to the real world incentivizes miners remain in consensus with the rest of the network and contributing to its security instead of attacking it.

One of the things that bugs me the most about the Bitcoin community is the number of people that simply regurgitate the ideas pushed by Bitcoin influencers. This is supposed to be a community of free thinking and a priori reasoning, but a majority of people aren’t doing this. Just because somebody online supports Bitcoin doesn’t mean that they have your best interest at heart. If we are not careful, we will end up creating the same system of control that we are trying to escape.

I’ve had a couple of days to collect my thoughts on the whole Bitcoin Core fiasco. I’ve heard a lot of different perspectives from a lot of respectable bitcoiners, and I’ve learned a lot about Bitcoin in the process. 1) there is obviously demand to put non-monetary data on the Bitcoin blockchain. I think this is generally a waste of block space and provides no benefit to the ecosystem because Bitcoin is a monetary network, not a database. 2) Core’s attempt to push an update that removes a node’s ability to control the transactions that get relayed from their mempool is an overstep of power. It highlights the need for a more decentralized developer community. Nodes should be able to configure their settings however they see fit. Optionality is key. However, nodes already have the option to run any version of Bitcoin Core. 3) if people continue to demand block space for non-monetary data into blocks, we will see more services like Marathon’s Slipstream that allow people to circumvent the filters that people have on their mempools. If these people are willing to pay a higher fee rate than the rest of the network, their data will make it into the blocks regardless of the filters - unless bitcoiners are willing to make a fork that rejects blocks that have arbitrary data in them. I’ve heard that this would be nearly impossible to implement as there would be disagreements about what counts as arbitrary. 4) if this arbitrary data is truly worthless, funding for it will eventually stop, and Bitcoin will return to being used for purely monetary purposes. In the short term, it could be annoying to compete with scammers for block space, but the fees will drop when they run out of money. Trust the incentives. Overall, putting non-monetary data on Bitcoin’s blockchain is a joke. Core should give nodes as much optionality as possible. Inscription scammers are hard to stop, but they will price themselves out of the fee market as people realize that their arbitrary data is worthless. We should do everything we can to remain in consensus because the Bitcoin community is what makes this whole thing worth talking about in the first place. @Bitcoin Mechanic @Matt Corallo @Matthew Kratter