Yeah valid appreciate this!
1. True- I didn’t mean it to come across that way. I just meant I’ve typically found it easier to understand knots point of view
2. Yeah citrea seems like scum to me- agree this shouldn’t be the sole reason to do it. Did you see the other twitter post I shared as to other reasons? But like I say I still don’t pretend to understand all the nitty gritty of all of this
3. For the sake of this video I’m not interested in this. I just wanted to figure out if core 30 update was going to kill bitcoin. There’s so many nuances to the full core vs knots debate with people’s character on both sides called into question- and like I say I totally appreciate anyone who chooses either side, I see both sides, I get the frustration on both sides, but all the speculation is what seems to be triggering people. I’d love to see more objective handling of the whole mess
Appreciate this comment
Login to reply
Replies (3)
> I just wanted to figure out if core 30 update was going to kill bitcoin
Short answer is yes, if we allow it. Long answer is much more nuanced.
It’s understandably difficult for Giacamo to stay unbiased against bitcoin core because:
1. Luke is his friend and is blames core for his “bitcoin theft”
2. Giacamo is on the board of Ocean (Luke’s company)
My 2 sats:
1. Why does Luke lie about “no data onchain before core V30” ?
2. why didn’t Luke raise the consensus change in 2023 when inscriptions started
If Luke is so technical, why didn’t he tell Mechanic and Ocean to keep this civil on the mailing list instead of brigading the core GitHub “work spaces” 🫠
Thanks for your answer.
About 1 and 3: fair!
About 2: I don't think Citrea was the sole reason to raise the limit, and I don't even think it was a relevant reason at all. See my response to @npub1art8...m0w5 here: nevent1qqst8sey22gvdacef3hj8naamfvdymy8kck0mz0407skgtx97myz80cw9u8aj. I think there are many, legit reasons to move from the old "policy as nudging" design to the new "policy as predicting" idea. I'm sympatetic towards LibreRelay, technically.