Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

FernandoTheKoala FernandoTheKoala@primal.net 4 months ago

Kudos to you to keep trying the civil conversation going, it's essential. I gave up because I came to the conclusion that there is no real motivation to discuss the issue at hand from core. As Jimmy Song beautifully said "though couched in technical terms, the argument is ultimately an economic one". I believe this can also be seen in core ppl being super willing to engage in technical discussion of this topic (they replied even to me for hours on this), but as soon as you try to include in the convo non-technical aspects (i.e. economic ones) they stop engaging all of a sudden. This happened systematically 95% of the time

↑ Parent

Replies (2)

epsql epsql@nsec.app 4 months ago

Honestly something feels off on the purely technical side too: - they claim they want to prevent mining decentralization, but shouldn't that be really addressed with StratumV2 and Datum instead of lifting OP_RETURN limits? The witness discount makes it cheaper anyways to publish data on chain, so I'm not sure how this point it's being addressed - they keep bringing up compact block reconstruction, when it's obvious that filtered transactions can be cached for a while until a block is found One positive takeaway of all this is that Bitcoiners are all but complacent.

3 replies ↓

Chris Guida nostr@cguida.io 4 months ago

At the end of the day their rationale for the change is not "purely technical", nor should it be. The change is (purportedly) an attempt to change the economic incentives. So any economic arguments against the change should be addressed.

1 replies ↓