jgbtc

The future of Bitcoin development, and the direction the reference client is being taken, will always be worth discussing. I understand the fatigue but your voice is still very much needed and appreciated Knut. Glad you're on the right side of this issue. https://fountain.fm/episode/p0a1BWVZ8bxwxy2UE0Kz nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqf2j5p7wzzhc8x5uuq63qcz0elt9ejcvu8jxvpzpfzza9dhqaqma4qzvj9

Great episode, thanks! Core's main argument (repeated ad nauseum) is filters don't work 100% of the time. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to be as good as possible. Maximum friction for spammers and anyone else who wants to use Bitcoin for non-monetary uses. Of course miners will do anything for money, that's exactly why an op_return limit and other policies are needed, but certain core devs have twisted this around to justify removing one of the few tools available to pleb node operators (the absurdly high v30 default is effectively the same as removal). The point Luke makes at 1:36:40 is particularly good. Core supporters focus on one side of the equation, the spam that gets mined, and ignore what isn't. The thing about deterrents is we can't know how many attacks aren't even attempted at all because a deterrent exists. In the firewall example, at least intrusion attempts can be detected, but the attacks that never happen can't be measured and so are easy to ignore and dismiss. This is one of many flaws in Core's arguments. Thanks again guys! https://fountain.fm/episode/Hfa2SvBEc8CHGqgAy742 nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqhf26zh9fp8s6nazse08y80dmc3wjpy24mvjwphnsqpgw5x4vjkq63gzj5

Really good discussion. The spam issue is still worth talking about and will remain so indefinitely because it's really about fundamental rifts between bitcoin stakeholders. So I'm sympathetic to Tomer's weariness of the topic, but thank you both for slogging through it anyway. The discussion should continue. More battles are on the horizon I think that will fall along the same fault line. https://fountain.fm/episode/HiBPL8bQhcC4iZ3uEStL nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzplrfm4t77z9msyxg7axneuj6przlp338numyscp6aavcmdgff480r44u29

The best example of core going woke was the blackist change in 2020. It's a particularly good example because the PR author explicitly did it for woke reasons: to use a "more appropriate" word and "make everyone happy". Contrary to Murch's claim that core tries to keep conversations technical (around 1:39:00), this PR had no technical justification at all. This was a good conversation, but if anything it made me even more anti-core. A lot of nitpicky weak arguments from Murch, and dismissive hand waving of valid concerns. We know there is more than one core dev, we have read the core arguments and we are still unconvinced. For all Murch's appeals for understanding the core position (I did make it to the end) he seems to have made very little effort to understand the position against this change. I read the "experts" letter, did he read the rebuttals? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19227 https://fountain.fm/episode/Azb62tIysXWUZH785w2M nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzq7hvhvdmalv0jgl8vg3ahtkd2lr8ss4t052fafejda6ytng64qtmq0040y