I see ad hominem has entered the chat...
You didn't argue anything against it, rather just attacked him and his motives.
You would convince a whole lot more people if you can help explain why his 'cope' is incorrect.
I certainly cannot do so, what say you?
Login to reply
Replies (4)
What is there to argue against that hasnt already been said?
He just repeating the same lies and illogical fallacies. I am not ad hom attacking him , i am calling him out on his actions - there is a difference. Ad homin attack was what they did to Luke rather than address the v30 release issue.
Regardless, the issue is already resolved, im running knots and will continie to call out Core when they lie
To point out someoneβs conflict of interest and motive is a fact, not ad hominem
He was just adding his own separate point. @npub12h35...k3mr already made a good argument and so did I.
This. It's a mere assumption that setting a fee for data of any type is good enough. The pro spam advocates also fail to consider that it is the RIGHT of individual nodes to do whatever they want with their own computer, that rearranging or filtering your copy of transactions aggresses against absolutely no one, and that setting individual policies as a node is the ONLY thing that safeguards the network. The consensus rules for example are called consensus because of consent, not the decrees of some group of devs. There's a word for this latter paradigm: fiat.
View quoted note β
View quoted note →