Happens every bear market

Are you sure? This looks like prime behavior to display it's anti-fragility.

Yes it is indeed very disappointing Was this change to default relay policy really worth it? Was it worth it to apply it once it appeared strong opposition even if from vocal minority? What does it bring that is incredibly necessary? (All genuine q)

Happens every bull market too. In fact moreso.

Ah yes. The ego...

sOs/diff.day Matt*\*ya

Yes, it's important to do the logical thing even if a bunch of illogical Puritans are against it. Puritans hate when people dare do things of which they disapprove. That ethos doesn't mesh well with permissionless systems. Puritans are gonna have a bad time in perpetuity, and it's their own doing for allowing themselves to get upset.

Bitcoin's continued development, if it continues, will be driven forward by masochists. 🫠

What does it allow that is absolutely necessary beyond being “logical” (if it is saying that people would spam in more harmful ways otherwise, or that people cannot define spam etc, all that is not very convincing) What is the practical need for this change, I think there is one, is not there?

Wow. What do you think could have spured their mood? It's like something makes them feel like all their advocacy has been, I dunno, kneecapped by some sort of current event? Crazy.

Let's hope it won't be driven forward by baby designers and island enjoyooors

It's not necessary. Nearly nothing is necessary. It's an optimization.

Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core development and transaction relay policy

Bitcoin Core development and transaction relay policy

Thanks. Can understand reasoning. Not sure 100 pct understand exact change on relay policy though so will study further.

Bitcoiners are disagreeable and paranoid. What did you expect? Or do you think some people pleasers could pull this off and not get totally owned by some psychopaths?

It's time to accept there is no such thing as "a bitcoiner". It falsely implies a single shared coherent ideology

"Yo, but if we ain't all vibin' on the same crypto wave, then what’s the deal with the #Bitcoin fam? 🤔 Are we just a bunch of solo players in this game or what? 💸💥"

Don't listen to his lies, he is paid to undermine Bitcoin.

Sad that your attempt to subvert humanity's hope at survival failed? Hold on. Let me break out the world's littlest violin for you.

Suggesting such things means you're clearly not a Real Bitcoiner!

You expect decent people to like this?

You expect decent people to like this?

Interesting turn of events don't you think? View quoted note →

Has been for years. Honestly not sure how we get any new blood at this point.

Bitcoiners are disagreeable and paranoid, sure, not surprising. What I do wish for, though is a recognition of disagreement as reasonable and not an indication of some unhinged underlying conspiracy, let alone deliberate attempts at harassment with the express goal of driving valuable talent away.

Only a Real Bitcoiner would….

So you were asking what you complain about?

Psychological projection!?

Probably.

Reasonable? After ALL THE COMPROMISED CORE DID? 🤡

You better read the logic of real Bitcoin OGs. Jameson is an evil shitcoiner and manipulator. If you want the truth watch @Matthew Kratter

Citrea are shitcoiners but may have deeper agenda. They triggered the change of OP_RETURN

Of course there is Bitcoin Culture and Bitcoin Values. This guy is a Jameson Slopp's cuck who is a bad actor and he repeats his bullshit that "everyone is a shitcoiner". View quoted note →

Another gross manipulation by the evil shitcoiner Slopp. First there is 0 evidence that Bitcoin will be forward developed by masochists. But isn't anything better than Epstein pedos related individuals? Of which we saw plenty of evidence?

I was troubled by ChatGPT denying op_return max size was changed in core30 relay policy. He only agreed he was wrong when I told him grok disagreed 😀 While I can understand the logic of open later above, I believe 1. There is a difference between a “deal” to add for instance csam between a miner and a user and csam being easily propagated on network. It is unlikely that such deals will exist for csam as miners will look really bad (much less the case when propagated as they can say they did not see / filter) 2. There is a difference also to add csam through complex ways in segwits that require interpretation and just straight easily in common interpretation in op_return These are real threats that op_returns size increase make much worse. Saying people are idiotic or obsessed by those or puritans won’t make those threats disappear and is not a way to argue. The fees prediction improvement seems minor compared to the change of how bitcoin is used / can be used (or attacked) in practice. Here too I agree with knots that change of default policy are shaping what the network is in practice. We don’t live in a theoretical word. Things are non binary : a chain where arbitrary can be added but it is non standard / non natural is very different from one where it is normal use. Keeping the network very simple, mostly monetary by keeping defaults optimizing for that seems the easy win. Otherwise, we risk losing the monetary use, that is the use that matters to most bitcoin users, and what it was invented for.

¡carallo matt! ¿ qué quieres llorando así ? ¿ opinión orquestrada ?

no me parece bien despreciar el talento de luke por "cristiano" o de kratter por "pleb" como hace slopp no se si estás de acuerdo con esa arrogancia slopp

This is written in bad faith.

Unfortunately that's how paranoia works. A perceived threat can't be accepted as a disagreement.

Yea…. You’re not wrong

o por ai-coders molaría

ai-coders