El Guirri's avatar
El Guirri 1 month ago
Was this the goal? Wreck the idea of it being freedom money through enshittification by corrupted core, cause schism, create division until one has degraded Bitcoin and people lose interest in it because it doesn't adhere to founding principles which the core driver of adoption. I find the argument of "not technical enough to chime in" has been weaponised. Who needs to be technical to understand it's core premise was money, not a database? Narratives

Replies (4)

Yeah, Andy Back telling us we weren't technical enough was a big turn off. And yes, enshitification is a real thing. Despite this, to paraphrase a quote from Winston Churchill: "Decentralised protocols are the worst form of protocols, except for all the rest"
El Guirri's avatar
El Guirri 1 month ago
Am not saying it isn't. It's just tainted money which does seem to be a historical norm anyway. Well done on the childish ending to your reply, always improves discussions. I personally wasn't too bothered to dig into the whole debate until I had to set up new node and had to endure watching the last 5% take 5 or 6 times as long as previous 95%. I dunno what quite to say other than well done! For something so potentially profoundly important, one would hope the kids don't piss in the pool, that's all.
Um, the reason the backend of the chain takes significantly longer is because "assume utxo valid" no longer applies past a certain block height. Your node only fully validates the very recent chain history.