On the "offending topic" and ppl being complex, I understand that devs are way better at coding and technical aspects, rather than communication. But you gotta admit that when someone is pretty shit at comunicating it has its impact (quite hard to completely discern the technical content from the way it is presented). Maybe core devs should also dedicate some time on how to better convey info, because it is a very imprtant aspect too
Anyway thanks a lot for your time man, I'm re-considering my stance here. As already mentioned I'm very emotionally invested in this and my emotions might have clouded my judgement initially!
Last question to you: if it turns out this change creates harmful consequences, can we simply roll it back withouth any issue? In this case the only way to roll it back would be through consensus change, correct? I'm all for experimenting to see what works best, but it is pretty hammered in my head that any change to btc is risky and should be heavily weighted as it might generated unforseen consequences
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Bitcoin's developers have long been criticized for not being the best communicators. You should have seen how it was when we tried to get SegWit activated. Eventually they published a pretty good FAQ. Later we got the OpTech newsletter etc. It's a lot better today compared to then, but it's probably not good enough. Developer time is scarce, and it would be nice to let them just work instead of becoming expert communicators able to convey nuanced technical concepts to regular people.
> if it turns out this change creates harmful consequences, can we simply roll it back withouth any issue?
Yes, it's just a mempool policy thing. Rolling back a mempool policy change does not involve a consensus change, just a new software release with adjusted mempool policy, and then encourage people to switch to it.
That said, this stuff is very well understood by now (we literally had the first OP_RETURN war in 2014, not much is new) – there isn't really any risk of harm.