OPENSATS FUNDS DEVS BASED ON THEIR PROOF OF WORK ON OPEN SYSTEMS. WE HAVE PROVIDED OVER 120 GRANTS. NONE OF THEM ARE WORKING ON “SHITCOINS ON BITCOIN.” IRONICALLY SAYLOR’S OWN IDENTITY PROJECT RELIES ON INSCRIPTIONS. GRANT RECIPIENTS PROVIDE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS TO THE BOARD. THESE ARE USED TO ASSESS RENEWAL REQUESTS.

Ok true. I guess my point is that they're not funding shitcoin projects. If a developer suddenly turns to shitcoining after receiving a grant then that sucks. But they're usually given grants after applying for a specific reason. And i think telling devs exactly what you want them to do can be equally terrible. Might as well make them employees. At the end of the day, very few consensus changes are merged to bitcoin and simply funding research or development is not a guarantee that bitcoin will be changed. And if it is changed then you still need node runners to run the software containing the changes.

*cough* ecash *cough* *cough*

Better yet, only run software that stays true to the #Bitcoin ideals..🧡😊 Maintenance: Yes Development: Not so much Do you really think you know better about how Bitcoin should operate then it's creator. "He who does not know, he does not know. Is indeed a fool." -Confucius "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -mama

I would even go further. Why should a #noderunner verify the blocks of miners that support spam and garbage transactions. It's not in our interest to do so. It causes blockchain bloat and unnecessary expense for virtuous nodes and #Bitcoin loyalist. We should sanction those miners and stop verifying their blocks. Like I said. "If a block gets mind in the forest, and there's no one there to verify it. Does it make any money"..💀🧡😊

Gd

🫡🫡

Fighting over opinions and ideas is exactly as it should be. This is good for Bitcoin.

Why are you defensive and feel opensats was implicated in this discussion?