Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Curious what the other side of the conflict is that the Fabians are backing. Because they almost always back two sides of a conflict -- the goal isn't to resolve it in a given direction, but rather, to destabilize the surrounding area with the conflict itself (so as to make swooping in later easier -- see: American Civil War, Everything post-Ottoman, every colour revolution ever). Makes me glad to see that it's not likely to succeed WITHOUT resorting to a URSF -- something that seems to bother some of the drummers behind this march almost more annoyed than the nominal spam issue itself (which has always been fairly obviously blown out of proportion, hence a lot of nonsense repeated about CSAM, block size, and even utxo set given that utreexo mostly makes this a solved issue). I'm not gonna say there's not Fabians on the Core side, but the idea that 110 is anything BUT this sort of destabilization campaign seems pretty willfully blind. Perhaps he'll be able to offer clarification as to why he'd see things otherwise. I won't speak for Natalie but will say I'm not terribly surprised she didn't entertain going down some of Kruse's rabbit holes. Her show usually is aimed at newer Bitcoiners or pre-coiners and showcasing how Bitcoin can improve peoples' lives, largely as a top of funnel orange pilling vehicle. That she'd shy away from getting into the Thunderdome that is Bitcoiners fighting Bitcoiners fighting Bitcoiners is all in all pretty on brand.

↑ Parent

Replies (2)

Tauri tauri@mynostr.com 3 days ago

The other side are people who supported Knots and were supposedly against spam, but are also against BIP110. You figure out who I am talking about.

1 replies ↓

Cykros psyche_eros@iris.to 3 days ago

So Core supporters and anti-spam anti-BIP-110 are the two sides of a controled fight? Yea, that doesn't really seem plausible. Core overshot by removing datacarriersize even as an option as it previously existed, but ultimately was reacting to miner centralization causing miners to process out of band transactions for a fee because they could (due to centralization). More transactions going out of band was worse than the impact of spam (particularly prunable spam). They went way further than necessary, but the direction looks soundly rooted in the situation. 110 overshoots in an attempt to lock things down. So much so that there is next to no support from merchant nodes (armies of start9 installs not meaning much of anything). Near term, practically neither of these actually changes much. 110 fails because it's entirely foolishly designed, while Core's move changes relatively little because honestly Librerelay had already solved the matter of out of out of band transactions. Core just enabled more visibility of likely blocks to people who run Core. It does, however, drive social division, and props up the likelihood of multiple implementations, which can in turn drive ossification. I'm generally for implementations for user choice, though ossification would be a decidedly bad thing for a network that still very much needs to grow in layers. There's no reason anyone should be aiming to accept Bitcoin® by Chaincode, but there's also no reason to reject it by splintering any ability to upgrade (especially through opposition that 'just wants Bitcoin how it used to be.'). In any case seeing the breakdown of nodes and miners it does look like Bitcoin's immune system is working as intended, and not being dragged into this nonsense. Tweet and Note storms notwithstanding.

1 replies ↓