I completely disagree. The technical and rational people are the *only* valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.
If you want to make a change, then become a core contributor, learn how bitcoin works, and become a part of the development process. Forking off into some alternate with an unhinged maintainer is not the way.
Login to reply
Replies (9)
Bitcoin is far more than the technical people who do things to its code. Every holder, noderunner, and miner also gets a say.
Core is "trying to change" not knots. You have it reversed.
I disagree with this. Bitcoin is technology and economics. And that means every economic actor has input on what it is and should be.
View quoted note →
I think the point is that core wants to make changes and as you said non technical don't want to make changes. Am I wrong?
I'm deleting damus and never recommending. Bitcoin is my money, and I have valid opinions even if I don't code. Plus, you - the coder - obviously don't understand bitcoin at all. This is THE DUMBEST and most arrogant post I've ever seen on nostr. Impressive.
If the technical/rational ones are being paid then should they still be considered the only valid ones?
I’m not saying core is bought and paid for. But unless we know 100% that they are not then why would we think they’re the only ones with valid opinions?
Weird argument for someone who just lost half the market share of a project within a few months. Nobody gonna pay you or give you gold stars for contributing to something no one wants.
fixed it: "I completely agree. The technical and rational people are NOT the valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.
If you want to make a change, then become a KNOTS contributor, learn how bitcoin works, run a node. Forking off into some alternate with an the *only* sensible maintainer is a way but not ideal."
the only ones who doesnt provide any ratiinal for why core30 is supposed to be good is you.
esentially, you disqualify yourself. you say you trust core, thus you dont have a facts or arguments based opinion yourself.
you currently choose that, thus nobody shluld discuss the pros/cons of core30 with you, because your opinion is just: i believe in core - they probably thought about it.
yeah - let me know if you change your mind by providing an actual issue based opinion that can be discussed. believe cant be discussed