The questions knots raised were / are 100% valid questions.
Seems the wider community just didn't care.
BIP110 was a wrong solution to a valid problem. This has been stated by many great minds in bitcoin.
The problem was it was also the *only* solution.
That puts real plebs in a difficult situation and creating the choice of "bad" or "worse".
I think core is "worse", but enough people didn't agree.
I think bip110 enforced the way it was, was horrible, but for me personally, I'd rather do that and win the rest of the community over than do nothing at all.
Samson Mow said on The bitcoin podcast, paraphrasing "core made the change, i didnt agree with it and gave them shit for it, but its done, they already did it, its over, so I moved on and stopped talking about it"
That doesnt sit well with me, to just say "ok, ill continue running your code"
And thats the feeling and attitude that pushed me to want something else.
I personally feel that "something else" was just running knots instead.
Clearly the BIP110 part of things was not the right call.
I think we as bitcoiners just need to be and do better.
Replies (6)
Bip110 was the right call, we just assumed miners would act rationally independently. It turns out the current state of mining is similar to a cartel where 5 big entities through back channels decided to disregard the wishes of 18000 node runners.
It seems that AntPool was completely ignorant (minded 961632 immediately) and Foundry hesitated and mined their first block after deadline (961635) only after 1 hour 26 minutes.
It shows the miners incentives do not align with the ideals of sound money. Satoshi stated bitcoin depends on miners being "honest". We found out miner centralization has caused them to be structurally unsound .
BIP-110 is still the right call.
Mostly agree. I think the changes bip110 proposed would have been an improvement overall.
That said, I don't think its failure necessarily indicates the wider community just didn't care... just that it wasn't viewed as an existential emergency by the wider community to consider at this time. A non-emergency proposal would have allowed for more time and effort to be dedicated to swaying a consensus... I strongly suspect there will be even more reflexive resistance to any such proposal now.
Knots didnt raise these questions.
I raised these questions when Andrew Chow came out as a tranny.
And I’d argue that even I was late; after blue haired fag Matt Carallo had been degrading Core for years and the psycho-spastic Peter Retodd who legit thinks Putin is gonna invade Canada became the most senior Core Devs.
These questions should have been asked long long ago.
When no-one saw a tranny having maintainer access as a problem I knew we were in for problems. I watched a canary half way up the mine keel over and gag to death on a dildo, and absolutely no-one on #nostr gave a shit.
I saw this fork failing a mile off because those who got behind it bought a narrative and didnt care when the problems actually began. I know like 3 Bitcoiners who did. And they went to war on a Luke Dashjr narrative which went to pedos rightly, but too early, with nothing in the tank behind it.
Now those valid questions get to push BIP110 uphill to actually solve this properly so thanks to all who participated in making the problem harder to solve and couldn’t be bothered giving a shit when a maintainer came out as a fucking tranny.
