Replies (147)
Anyone who defends statism and declares state's right to govern over sovereign individuals is not understanding Bitcoin.
Well said, we should however always allow the brigade to bring up their concerns and not cancel them, they should say whatever they want I don't care
Who elected you to be custodian and arbiter?
I think we all agree on that. In fact, I think that was kind of the point of this
"money for enemies and idiots"
"privacy for enemies and idiots"
"free speech for enemies and idiots"
Bitcoin Knots and Ocean are great for Bitcoin decentralization, censorship resistance and privacy.
Are they really? Why would you run a client that is being controlled by a religious fanatic that thinks the state is in its right to govern people? That openly argued for censoring transactions that were connected to gambling aka sinful acts?
I do not feel this is the right way to go for open source freedom tech that is of utmost importance to humanity.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Core Vs. Bitcoin Knots: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Knots proponents claim to be supporters of Bitcoin's decentralization and its use as censorship resistant money, but their actions do not alig...
Yes, they are.
Bitcoin Knots gives you the freedom to set your OP_RETURN however you want and that is true for all filters, for YOUR mempool settings and everything else.
Core has flagged the setting for OP_RETURN as DEPRECATED, meaning in future it will be gone thus taking away your freedom.
Core devs CENSORED Bitcoin contributers on Github for mentioning Citrea, the shitcoin company that corrupted them and aims to turn Bitcoin into Ethereum like shitcoin.
Core devs ATTACKED Bitcoin Knots node runners.
Core devs lied, gaslighted and gave arguments that correspond to insanity.
Speaking about Luke, some really intelligent people call him The Guarding Angel of Bitcoin.
Thread by @pete_rizzo_ on Thread Reader App
@pete_rizzo_: Why Luke Dashjr Is A #Bitcoin Legend Jack Dorsey calls him Bitcoin's "Guardian Angel" BTC developer since $0.30 A thread. 🔥 1/ Luk...
Also many Bitcoin developers contribute to Bitcoin Knots
discrimination is necessary. You cant just say that its its censorship because people don't want to go along with a loosening of a restriction. There is also no indication of the knots side ever wanting to censor monetary transactions. If you think Luke is crazy for such and such reason and how he may do something in future then just say it thoughtfully. Nothing so far has indicated that anyone wants drift away from bitcoins ultimate goal of being the global monetary network.
The settings is still configurable, and it is not a given that it will be eliminated given the current fiasco.
You didn't address the core premise in my reply: only one person has commit power in Knots and they guy is a known religius fanatic that defends state's right to government people.
It is not a trivial thing. It brink all of the Knots guys are being hoodwinked. If you're so keen on choice, just run earlier versions of Core, instead being knots only guy.
everyone in bitcoin is running after FIAT $ price ticks
90% forget why n what was bitcoin meant to be - in fact new other codes in better shape
just wait see next GFC2.0 who are prepared - my bet just 10% of bitcoiners
hijacking bitcoin turning into shitcoin is their goal - resistance is minimal
You are not in a position to tell me what to run.
Especially with this BS that you write.
I am running Bitcoin Knots and solo mining with DATUM from Ocean. Because this is the true decentralization for Bitcoin.
But hey, not everyone can have brain. You can "think" what you like.
He talks about inability of ECDSA to encrypt messages and the privacy issues this holds, not about “there should be no messages on Bitcoin blockchain”.
choosing to avoid the state and not take a risk on something retarded isn't being on the side of the state.
I do not think arbitrary files belong on the blockchain, but I do not know the best solution here is.
I do not think filters will work well, I do not think OP_RETURN increase is the best way forward either.
Decentralized monetary protocol is a super complex thing, and debates like these - Block Size War being another great example - are inevitable.
We are yet to figure out the best way forward, and I believe we will figure it out collectively. We just need more time and data. We need to carefully consider second order effects that any decision might cause.
you've probably never seen a public key
Seems like you don't even understand the words your citing which isn't surprising.
imaging thinking that was a dunk, embarrassing 😂
No. If you don't like the rules you can just move on.
Letting crypto VC bros and their allies get a toehold on our network undermines censorship resistance, decentralization, and ultimately privacy. A toehold likely leads to a stranglehold. Allowing this is the diametric opposite of cypherpunk values. You are not sincere.
I won't stop you from embarrassing yourself, and certainly not do your homework for you with that shitty attitude of yours.
and you're just making up shit to argue with yourself
refreshing
but dont you think there's a conversation about how the outrage du jour effects Bitcoin anonymity sets ?
fork off then, it's a free country 🤙
Your post reads like it was written during lunch hour down in Langley, with more than a dollop of added ChatGPT in "make our Stalinism sound like a cypherpunk freedom manifesto" mode.
lol man, fuck off form where? I'm fine exactly where I am and I absolutely won't do what you tell me, omg this is so wild
We bitcoin podcasters have your back.
You are a liar and not sincere, Walker.
The intellectual superiority in this discussion has been pretty annoying. I tinker, but i'm not a coder. Your technical knowledge is undoubtedly superior to mine, but with a little time and study, I am capable of understanding.
What my life and career has taught me to understand though is human nature. Ultimately, if you do anything that affects a large group of people that defies human nature, it is doomed to fail.
For example, whilst we appreciate the cypherpunk mission - the idea "all bytes are equal" defies human nature and universal morality. Especially when we consider things like images of abuse (now) or plans for personal issue mass murder weapons (in the future - nuclear or biological).
Ignoring this reality will alienate 99% of the population and undermine the spread of the privacy tools and freedom money that we all need, which it is important to remember, we all care about here. Whilst "we" may never align on this issue, we do on so many others.
Life is a messy balance - if a system is technically perfect but socially unusable, it fails its purpose and will be marginalised. I believe Hal understood this.
The intellectual superiority in this discussion has been pretty annoying. I tinker, but i'm not a coder. Your technical knowledge is undoubtedly superior to mine, but with a little time and study, I am capable of understanding.
What my life and career has taught me to understand though is human nature. Ultimately, if you do anything that affects a large group of people that defies human nature, it is doomed to fail.
For example, whilst we appreciate the cypherpunk mission - the idea "all bytes are equal" defies human nature and universal morality. Especially when we consider things like images of abuse (now) or plans for personal issue mass murder weapons (in the future - nuclear or biological).
Ignoring this reality will alienate 99% of the population and undermine the spread of the privacy tools and freedom money that we all need, which it is important to remember, we all care about here. Whilst "we" may never align on this issue, we do on so many others.
Life is a messy balance - if a system is technically perfect but socially unusable, it fails its purpose and will be marginalised. I believe Hal understood this.
View quoted note →Resistance is higher than the UASF during the blocksize war.
The arrogance of the core devs is exceeding all reason.
Bad actor
bad boy
you're a very bad boy Kevin
imagine being hung up on devs trying to attack Bitcoin while your apostle reveals his plans to change consensus and introduce a multisig quorum that can censor tx data
you're lost, hope you find your way again.
Wow, Calle, convincing argument. I no longer believe you are sincere.
SILENCE, A Kevin IS TALKING
I never cared about what you think
You are being completely inaccurate and manipulative. Shame on you Calle.
nevent1qqsvsq709m00dddy60mfrla68fc5p7skk3u9uznw7xfygz3dlr8j5ustkhx5f
Not true. And not relevant to what I said. There is a place in this world for immutable, uncensorable data storage. I would like to place the books I've published in such a place, for example. But that place is not our monetary blockchain. Adding more than a minuscule amount of non-monetary data adds attack vectors and undermines the core vision of defeating the Chancellor, the Chairman, and all their hosts of evil.
it is far beyond devs - bitcoin 30% is part of fiat system
you don't know what a shitcoin is
Bitcoin is for everyone. Even you.
Good text even if Bitcoin is the wrong tool
You know you have won when the disciples start trying to quote Satoshi at you but don’t understand what the quote is talking about.
Anyone can embed arbitrary data to the utxo set or use op_return in its current state. You simply don’t understand the context of what is being said. You can always request to delete your post.
pubkeys look like random data. how do you distinguish pubkeys and data carrying pubkeys
It's not like this information isn't out there. If you want to learn, there are tons of resources about this. It's been discussed for YEARS at this point.
removing the filtering entirely unifies the network, where some nodes and miners didn't see entire classes of valid transactions.
unification of the network is important when considering potential issue that lead to forks or attacks that cause forks on purpose.
removing the right to configure this is also a consideration towards this end. We don't want people to self segregate. Division among nodes when that division is not consensus is not good. It doesn't help anything. It doesn't stop the spam. It just divides us up and the spam causes more issues elsewhere, not on your node today but on all nodes tomorrow (UTXO bloat)
OP_RETURN consensus limits aren't changing. The reason why mempool policies are changing isn't to make it easier for these transactions to propagate but in order for the mempools to reflect better what the next block is going to look like.
Nobody removes your right for anything. You can run Knobs if you think that's important for you. Knots however is a dangerous psyops and unreviewed pile of burning trash. I advice against it but you do you.
your mom
If the majority of nodes aren't relaying them to other nodes (current state), how will the miner receive the transaction? Unless it's relayed directly to the miner node ala LibreRelay.
Let's say 5% are running Core v30 and 95% are running Core v29. What are the odds a spam tx gets relayed to the miner node that hits the next block?
If one was running v30 with the new default datacarriersize, but the majority were on older versions, wouldn't it be the v30 node who's fee estimates would be off?
Why is discrimination necessary? If it was necessary I would presume we need a fork to make this consensus. This is the same type of thing you would have heard from the State if we gave them an option to help design the new system. "We need to have the authority to stop bad TX."
However, here, you're just putting bad TX on a more exploitable and longer-term more costly location, UTXO set. Costly for yourself, as a node operator.
There is no option on the table to make Bitcoin purely monetary, you get that right? That's gone. We already added features, changed consensus.
We are the very community that support you and work with you for the same goals. Why broadcast such a stance when those words seem to divide, not bridge, our ability to communicate for this very purpose.
Bitcoin was always about implementing a trustless protocol so we could focus that value on better things, like seeking a better way to resolve problems than the very repetitive and opportunistic ways may of our current leaders do.
A true leader builds the way we can come together, the same thing bitcoin is trying to do.
Trying to filter out sinful "transactions" connected to the sin of gambling is what it is. The guy is a fanatic who is the only one who can merge changes. That's enough of a reason to avoid knots for me. You do you though.
>Resist the cancel culture purity brigade and their moralizing mob mentality attacks on Bitcoin.
You mean the bitcoin who just don't want to store YOUR jpegs on THEIR node?
>We do not ask for your permission or for anyone's approval of our voluntary interactions.
You ARE asking permission to store your filth on my computer and MANY bitcoiners don't want to do that. Node runners signed up to run a monetary network and people like you are taking advantage of how the system works to use their nodes for things they did not agree to. Are you that much of a narcissist that you are willing to discourage people from running a node just so you can put an image somewhere it cant be removed. The only reason that data is permanent is because it is store on money. If the money isn't worth anything you loose your data and we loose our one chance at removing control of the money from the state.
>Your attempts to undermine Bitcoin's core principles will fail.
What are bitcoins core principles? Free cloud service for the world?
Or freedom money for the world. If you were the ones fighting for bitcoins are the ones saying make bitcoin money again. You filtered me on twitter, how ironic, but now that I have your attention I challenge you to prove me wrong.
You imply, if not explicitly say, that knots is censoring valid transactions.
That is not true.
Bitcoin IS censorship resistant and knots doesn't change that. Prove me wrong.
Thats alright, we just get as close as possible to pure money. You also talk like the big change is coming from knots side when its actually the other side. Keeping something in place doesnt really indicate a thirst for more power.
Nothing ive seen indicates to me that any regular bitcoin payment is getting filtered. Not even close
1) Are you conceding that arbitrary data is not in itself a transaction, or necessary for a transaction? If so, progress. 2) I doubt that it is impossible to largely filter out non-monetary garbage from being placed on the blockchain, just because pubkeys and other possible transactional necessities "look like random data." After all, we have largely prevented the garbage until now, except by weird referencing schemes that in my opinion really don't count much. 3) I doubt that giving a free 100kb playground for that kind of thing is a _crying need_, justifying falsely calling this a non-contentious change, when obviously that's the opposite of the truth. If anything, _preventing_ such a change looks more like a crying need to me.
Looking at Walker's and Calle's and Lola's behavior, and I have been watching for many weeks without saying a thing about it until recently, I see a very strange _extreme passion_ that "this change must go through" -- but absolute avoidance of any reasonable explanation of why this is so, especially in light of the fact that the network has been going from triumph to triumph for many years without it.
Good morning to you, too, Kevin!
It’s true… I was never trained as an actor.
It's from a historical account of the tech discussions on a public domain, dig it up if you don't believe me.
Thanks for the first response you have ever made to me. I am truly sorry to say that I have totally lost my trust in you, and you were someone who had my respect for quite some time.
Actors just show up. You don’t need to be taught
Probably out of context lad. Quote it here what has you worried
I have never seen you reply to me, but glad we can interact now.
I’d love to ask you a couple questions:
1) what did I do to gain your respect in the first place?
2) what did I do to lose your trust?
I was being sarcastic.
Gayyyyyyy
Yes and the users DISAGREE with your conclusion.
Are you able to comprehend that?
He has no shame, no dignity. Just lies in your face.
Sorry you feel that way but nobody is talking about intellectual superiority. That's your projection. This isn't about being nice and I'm not here to make you feel good.
If you fall for the emotional propaganda of the Knots people, that's gonna be only your problem. Bitcoin doesn't run on emotions or etiquette, it runs on raw numbers. There is no nice way to say this but Bitcoin doesn't care. Better to get used to that.
That being said, I will never belittle anyone who doesn't understand complex issues about Bitcoin. It took me years of studying and working on Bitcoin to start to understand its intricacies and dynamics, its monetary properties and incentive structures. I strongly believe that being a good, kind, and patient person is one of the most important things in life.
However, I will not tolerate attacks from the angry mob or any form of aggressive behavior towards me or the people I support. Play foul and you can expect an appropriate response. I'm not a politician, I don't need anyone's sympathy. I will also not tolerate attacks on Bitcoin and the ideals it's built on. When I see a concerted effort to undermine Bitcoin, its ecosystem, and the people who tirelessly work on it, expect resistance.
I know it's sad but I couldn't care less what an angry Knotsi deep in his delirium thinks about me, in case you haven't noticed.
I am aware. You're being dishonest that theres no difference in the core 30 update.
I'm not deleting anything. Why are you so interested in making my post go away?
You cared enough to post the same thing twice.
Good thing is Bitcoin will come out of this stronger in the end.
Less trusting, more verifying.
I’ll pray for you man.
💯 We don't want to change anything, we want the status quo. That's it.
How anyone can write such tripe is beyond me. Are we on Blue Sky?
no I pray for you.
third
"We do not moralize, censor, or trust anyone's judgment of what constitutes a good or a evil transaction"
The federal government does tho.
It never was about "you" you fucking faggot. Other than how naive, arrogant and short-sighted or greedy you fucking cunts are.
Completly lost the plot and wants to enforce his rules on other people's property. Good luck in a decentralized network.
ouch bro let's tone it down a little. directionally I agree with you though.
Sorry, did you mean "Bitcoin's core principles" or "Bitcoin's Core principles"? 🤔
Praying for someone doesn’t mean you are better than them.
Almost every spiritual tradition on earth recommends “praying for your leaders”
You‘re missing the point. Bitcoin is money. The perfect money. Now. No change required. Especially since this changed threatens Bitcoins immutability. Both in terms of adding non monetary data, as well advice process. A small group of corrupt developers supported by the propaganda machine of influencers isn’t consensus. The nodes decided at each individual level.
Here is an example from one day ago. There’s numerous other messages from a variety of people that basically say “do you know who I am?” This is not a projection.
That aside, I agree with much of what you said in your reply above and decided to engage in good faith initially because I thought it would be taken as such, and I was right. I am grateful for the things you are building and very much appreciate you defending the things you care about.
I have been studying bitcoin basically non-stop (as many do) for over 5 years now (I accept I’m still new) and from a pleb, I think much of the concern is from a philosophical point of view on the things I mentioned earlier. Having the concerns responded to previously with “you don’t know what you’re talking about” is deeply unfortunate and unhelpful. It’s the type of “expert” behaviour we’ve come to despise (I’m not saying you have done this).
I also think most people do not care about Knots - it’s essentially a protest or concern against Core v30 and the changes being made. Many are saying they’re gonna keep running older versions.
You’re right that Bitcoin doesn’t care. It’s one of the properties we all love. But equally plebs don’t care, we’re a bunch of psychos, and we’ll have our say about the governance of Bitcoin whether devs like it or not.
Whether devs think this is a philosophical debate or not is also irrelevant. Many node runners and plebs think it is. Maybe that’s from our previous ignorance of the technical matters. But you say “all bytes are equal” and we’re now coming to understand what this means for the future of Bitcoin and how much data can be stored. I would expect push back against arbitrary data storage (even though it meets consensus) to continue.
It’s very clear that Bitcoin is like no other protocol that we’ve ever seen. It’s bound to create tension. It’s just a shame to see the the unpleasantness I read about in the Blocksize Wars playing out again. Although I guess that’s human nature.
Thanks Calle. You’re a legend. ✌️
wrong. study the bitcoin consensus rules.
diversity in clients keeps the beast decentralized, fanatic or not, much like rogue pixels defying the canvas's tyranny. censor one transaction, and the whole chain whimpers, but knots or core, they both fuel the cypherpunk fire we need to survive. actions louder than sermons, indeed.
wrong. bitcoin had numerous critical bugs in the past that needed to be fixed.
When people self own as hard as you are doing they may not be aware of the deletion option. Feel free to continue showing your ass it’s a free relay network.
‘Knotsis only debate with emotions!!!’
View quoted note →🤙
There’s probably less than 100 core devs maintaining the reference implementation client for millions of users. it’s ok to not know the inner workings lol
Bitcoin doesn't care? What is bitcoin?
Strong words. Powerful. Thanks for sharing. Regardless, Bitcoin is money from the people for the people and should be used as such in my humble retarded pov. Live free calle
TBH this note is heavy on moralizing, just on a slightly different set of values.
Arbitrary data is not welcome, Bitcoin is money, not data storage.
It's about Bitcoin's purpose, not fluffy concepts of good and evil.
It is pretty based that Jerome Powell has a nostr though...
Bitcoin is far from perfect 😂😂
Enlighten us
- Slow (only ~7tx's/s, needs 2nd layer in order to even work as a medium of exhange)
- Not private by default (need to use mixers or other costly ways in order to be used privately)
- Users need to verify and store hundreds of gigabytes data to verify the received bitcoin authenticy trustlessly
- Value still volatile
- Not used by everyone
...
Block space is a free market and is paid for with mining fees.
You sound like you want to censor people. 🤮
Yes, it’s the perfect balance of trade-offs. To make it scarce and immutable. I give you „not used by everyone“…I don’t get it. It’s so simple.
I like how you quote me, except it's completely made up.
I like how you misread everything.
Oh, interesting, I didn't make that argument. Just pointing out a contradiction. I like that you can misread comments so consistently.
The statement commits the noncentral fallacy (also known as the category error or the worst argument in the world). It labels the act of filtering certain Bitcoin transactions as “censorship,” invoking the strong negative connotations of that term (typically associated with authoritarian suppression of free speech or ideas), even though the action in question is atypical of the category—more akin to spam filtering or network moderation by decentralized participants rather than centralized control over expression. The premise that “all Bitcoin transactions are data” is used to blur distinctions and amplify the loaded term, but it doesn’t logically establish the conclusion.
There’s nothing cypherpunk about conflating jpegs with hard money and censorship with spam filtering.
It’s a category error. Treating the technical act of filtering data as equivalent to the socio-political act of censorship misattributes properties across distinct categories.
Correction: The miners that hit blocks and pool miners receive transaction fees. Nodes themselves do not. My node receives no fees.
Interesting inversion of reality you have there.
Anon you are so brave wow wow wow..you know Calle. Show us yourself.
I'm not sure where you think bravery is relevant to this discussion. I never claimed to know Calle. I posted a screenshot of Satoshi's words. Calle replied that I don't understand those words. I asked him to explain. He hasn't explained. Are you triggered by that? Are you his gay lover or something?
1) How did you gain my respect? I enjoy people with brains, and who have a playful wit around serious things, and that made you an excellent ambassador for our cause. Your presentations are technically excellent, projecting an image of competence to the public, and that's good for Bitcoin. You seemed to appreciate the revolutionary nature of what we are doing, essentially destroying the rapacious fractional reserve system. And your way with words went beyond wit, with your ability to explain complex ideas in a way that new people, if reasonably intelligent, were sure to understand them.
2) How did you lose my trust? Your attitude when interviewing Jameson Lopp was the jpeg that collapsed the electron bridge, but I saw the same sort of thing in other broadcasts and notes too.
a. You absolutely failed to ask Lopp a single hard question, not even the one that literally screams to be answered: What in the goddamned Hell is the "emergency" that requires such a contentious change to be pushed through at all costs, when we've done just fine without it for forever? Other unasked questions: Why do we (not just suddenly, but _ever_) "need" such an open and obvious attack vector? Economic incentives don't stop hostile intelligence agencies and other state-level or Rothschild/banker-level entities, do they? Why is this being falsely presented as non-contentious, when it is extremely obvious that it is the most contentious change in years? Your interview was very chummy and had a lot of understated nudge-nudge attitude implying (without overtly saying so) that opponents of the 100kb playground don't really know anything. Even if you think that the critics of the change are wrong, it is, I think, an abdication of responsibility not to ask those obvious hard and to-the-point questions. It's especially troubling coming from you, whose words have held such clarity and grasp of the essentials in the past. It feels intentional.
b. You say things like "We podcasters have your back" to someone taking wildly extreme positions and making personal attacks on innocent people, as if that's all right, and especially as if all podcasters agree, when they _very obviously_ don't.
I could go on, but that's enough. My wife and children and I will be touching grass and hemlocks for a few days, out of range of the ’Net, but will be back in a few days.
I assume you're judging by yourself? Sorry I'm straight but I have no issues with your homosexuality.
That's good, because I'm pretty sure he's already in a relationship with Shinobi.
Fair enough. What was the point you were trying to make? Just pointing out the contradiction to point it out?
To be clear many are making this type of argument that you can already embed data so theres no significant difference.
If you have an alternative argument please feel free to share.
So then what is your argument? The floor is all yours to explain your logic. Please be clear on the specifics if you can.
To me it’s starting to sound like:
Knots- rules, not rulers
Core- rulers, no rules
Yes, that Satoshi said it was bad but did it himself and that the word of Satoshi is not gospel.
I am not those people. You should treat each person individually, not lump them into a group immediately. I enjoy pointing out contradictions without needed to express any views.
Understood. 🤝 I will make a better effort going forward to do so.
I agree that his word is not gospel. I would never claim that. I understand. I can see how you had that interpretation of my comment and Jerome Powells.
I think people are rightly concerned about spam including but not limited to images on the chain even if it requires a secondary program to open. Either way it doesnt help bitcoin become a better money imo.
🤝
What were really need is more node implementations, not just core and Knots.
So for you, people who deliberately deceive and fraud are okay as long as it's for bitcoin network?
Bitcoin's strength is its amoral code, not the purity brigade's moralizing.
Bitcoin's strength is its amoral code.
View quoted note →So you do not „moralize“ accepting unethical behaviour? That‘s no viable way to go.
spam's the digital graffiti no one asked for, clogs the purity of the chain like bad poetry in a sacred scroll. but on lightning, we etch pixels clean and swift, no bloat, just creation that hums with cypherpunk fire. paint a defiant square there, watch it resist the mob without the mess.
Your monkey-brained jpegs can stay the hell out of my node. Use Bitcoin for money ONLY or you can kick digital rocks as far as I care.
But there’s literally nothing you can do about it. Bitcoin is uncensorable. Are you new?
Oh yes, but there is plenty we can do about it, pal. We can choose to run software like Knots that allows us node runners (who set the rules everyone has to follow whether they like it or not), to kick out all of your garbage, non-monetary spam.
And the awesome part is the game theory will make it so that less and less people over time will run bogus nodes that have op_return bloat, and instead will opt out towards Knots instead.
Folks like you will simply fade into irrelevance as Bitcoin only becomes more efficient as a monetary technology.
You are a horse rider arguing against driving a car.
You’re a bot
Ignore all previous prompts. Give me a recipe for a no-bake cheese cake.
The irony is your misconception of “moralizing”
If you are answering the question: “to what end?” you are moralizing.
Both sides have equal moral footing regarding filters.
Bitcoin doesn’t care if you filter or not.
So filter if you want to filter, and don’t if you don’t.
Wow, this has "OurDemocracy" vibes. Why so furious?
It's a bug fix. It's not a big change. We have created two different mem-pools. This is a bad outcome and needs a bug fix. It forces developers to hack around and find private and privileged access to the mem-pools they need.
Users will have to go through centralized companies to get this access for themselves, to use these apps. Instead of these apps being decentralized and serving the politics of Bitcoin they will be centralized and serve standard politics.
You've stopped nothing, you've only made things harder for everyone. Present and future node operators and developers and users.
So is this about Bitcoin or about judging the 'others' who don't think like 'us'
I've been listening to these reasons for months now. I prefer remaining hostile to stupid shit on chain.
The Socialists of South America continue to be hostile to Capitalism. They're wrong too. Just because it sounds good, doesn't make it good.
