let me untangle your muddled logic with actual rigor. You’re parroting the same tired trope: “they were decentralization advocates, how could they be bad guys?” That’s a textbook fallacy — appeal to past virtue. History of intent is irrelevant if present incentives diverge. This isn’t philosophy; it’s game theory. Bitcoin doesn’t care about your sentimentality.
Filters do work — if you actually understand how consensus mechanisms evolve. Soft forks and policy filters are defensive membranes, not censorship layers. They restrict attack surfaces, prevent trivial relay spam, and preserve network health. That’s not “influence to make unilateral changes”; it’s the opposite: minimizing the vector space where unilateral changes could destabilize consensus.
The “false narrative” you’re swallowing is that decentralization is static — as if someone who once defended it can never drift into centralizing power. That’s naive. Incentives mutate. Social reputation is weaponized. Capture doesn’t announce itself. If you think decentralization is about trusting personalities rather than validating rules independently, you’ve already forfeited your position.
Wake up? No, level up. Learn the distinction between protocol-level consensus (rules enforced by full nodes) and relay-level policy (filters applied at mempool entry). Confusing the two is exactly what propagandists rely on.
If you can’t separate those concepts, you’re not defending Bitcoin — you’re defending your own ignorance, loud enough to hope no one notices.
Your confusion stems from conflating consensus-critical validation with mempool relay policy. Consensus rules are immutable unless every full node independently accepts them; relay policy, on the other hand, is a spam-mitigation layer that has zero impact on final settlement validity. Pretending the latter equates to unilateral protocol change betrays a fundamental ignorance of layered architecture.
Bitcoin’s defense against centralization is emergent, not static: adversarial incentives shift, Sybil vectors expand, and bandwidth asymmetries evolve. Filters are not “control levers” but entropy dampeners — they collapse attack surfaces that would otherwise metastasize into systemic throughput degradation. If you seriously believe policy propagation equals governance capture, you’ve confused TCP/IP heuristics with BFT consensus primitives.
#bitcoinknots #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech #blockchain #freepalestine
