this View quoted note →

> haven't met a serious Bitcoiner No true Scotsman.

i am not running a study my dude. Anecdotal and empirical observations 🧐

Well Jeff Booth is kinda serious and influential. Dennis Porter..what about him?

These people are not developers so i don’t see how they could understand the technical nuance of the change. From what i can tell they are just getting looped into the social contagion

No one should be listening to double penetration porter.

why do people listen to him? He is just some random guy who doesn’t seem to be involved in bitcoin dev at all

Yeah...he makes a lot of noise.

Most of Knots supporters repeat opinions without proper knowledge it seems.

No idea. A few years ago I went to one of his meetups Because it was only a couple hours away and I wanted to see what the deal was and he is not technical at all. Thankfully Portland has a slew of actual technical Bitcoiners that we're fun to talk to.

Yes...ideological propaganda at its finest.

Yes i have noticed this

"97% of bitcoin scientists agree"

ok we'll let dennis porter run bitcoin from now on 😂

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.

Never heard of him

Dennis Porter seems like he has no idea what he’s talking about 😂

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

Luke is clearly trying to replace Core. And it's quite likely that he thinks he'll get to be the maintainet of the Core replacement, along with the income stream that represents.

X (formerly Twitter)

Luke Dashjr (@LukeDashjr) on X

Bitcoin is not a finished product. We may be on a detour to address spam, and part of the crisis did originate with (mishandling of) the Segwit and...

that was my guess as well View quoted note →

To be clear, making filters consensus only requires a soft fork. Though most likely it would be an extremely messy one as it'll probably be a UASF, and it'll almost certainly fail.

There are a few "serious" developers who think we need an alternative implementation.

I haven't heard a serious argument for why we need to remove the data carrier limit. Bitcoin is working perfectly fine for me.

Serious Bitcoiners means devs only, apparently.

when it comes to code changes, yes

That's not all there is to being a Bitcoiner, serious or otherwise.

if you're going to dictate changes to bitcoin you at least have to be literate of the code changes, thats a bare minimum.

Hard disagree. This is elitist, gatekeeping nonsense.

yer glowing!

People are always chasing a hype. "It will pass. " View quoted note →

correct

selection bias, you should get out more

Hey I just want to appologize for what I said yesterday. I went and did like 45 min of research and learned I was wrong.

And no I'm not bein sarcastic in saying 45 min of research, ai helped me understand pretty fast what I was getting wrong so in all seriousness, sorry.

I know u cant be honoust but you have done your fair share of forcing Luke up to this poit of action. You have smuggishly ignored and disrespected every single one of Luke's outreaches.

No its obviously just you two losers projecting your own mentallity on to Luke and its showing!

Interesting, thanks for sharing

This elitist view of yours will be core's ending.

😂

why would it be messy?

what a load of shit... Core has been hated and suspect from the beginning by ANYONE WHO EVER MATTERED in the space you fucking idiots came into yesterday.

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.

what does this have to do with anything? also I don't take anyone seriously if they are using AI to respond to things. use your own brain.

the people who you seem to be attacking have been defending it from retards like you for much longer than you have been around.

you said this: "Pretty odd that the opinion “core 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.

suck a dick nigger. you dont know me.

you are posting links from 2016-2019, what does that have to do with the current debate. the fact Mircea Popescu is being quoted as evidence just shows how uninformed you and AI are

the big blockers said core was destroying bitcoin as well, look at how they turned out.

and thats it right fucking there... yer just a blind johnny-come-lately "im here now" and what came before me doesnt matter... if you knew anytiing about those sources or bitcoin besides your cucked newcomer "history doesnt matter" bullshit.. and you have problems with references to trilema and mircea popescu? yer a fucking idiot

yes because you have gamed it all out for the next thirty years ...

you seem mad bruh

why do you want child porn on bitcoin @jb55? whats the big payoff that you are willing to risk that?

Why do you still discuss this? You made your stance clear. Anything anybody says won't change your mind and vice versa. Can you brilliant bitcoin dev guys talk about CTV and OP_TX?

and you will die one day and be forgotten entirely. enjoy.

this was from 2 days ago

Fair, and the discussion continues.

this is a nigger tactic. your mouth is a vagina with teeth. virgin till 24 though so its understandable. you are fat too... which is fucking disgusting.

Because there isn't consensus. It's a stupid idea so Knots will likely be in the minority, and have to battle for mindshare after they fork off.

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. 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 → View quoted note →

ah fair, thought there was some subtle technical reason

normal, how would you do it the other way around?

messy UASFs, unlikely MASFs, missing Satoshi, how do we push forward? crushing bones?