The biggest flaw of the pro-Core position, in my view, is that it's purely an appeal to authority, specifically the authority of the Core developers. In Bitcoin, you're supposed to not trust, but verify. But we're being told to trust this group of developers who ram through a controversial change without listening to the community. And you can verify what they're doing, too. This change doesn't need to happen. It's perfectly valid to oppose the changes made in Bitcoin V30. It's sickeningly elitist to suggest that you're not supposed to have an opinion about Bitcoin unless you contribute to the code. That's not how this works.

Bitcoin is as much an idea as it is a technology. Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because the code is impeccable. Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because the tech is cool. Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because you can put pictures on a blockchain. Bitcoin adoption happens because it is the best form of money we've ever seen, and because the people who figure that out tell other people about it.

The Knots vs Core debate has a strange dividing line: philosophical concerns vs technical ones. I also like the framing that those who prioritize Bitcoin as money are taking the Knots side, and those who prioritize Bitcoin as technology are taking the Core side. I know what is more important for me. Bitcoin the technology is only relevant because it solves the problem of money for the world. Bitcoin is money. The technology is just the enabler. Making Bitcoin worse at being money is a bad thing. The arguments for enabling spam for technical reasons make no sense to me. This makes Bitcoin worse as money. I'm not in favor of that. At all.

I saw a manager at my job today for the first time since I got back from my "vacation". He said to me, "Hey, I heard about this big Bitcoin event a couple of weeks ago, did you go to that? How was it?" I got to say "I helped organize it! And it went great!" So that was pretty cool.

GM nostr! Going into the fiat mines today. Wish me luck!