moonsettler

there is that saying "what goes around comes around!"

"If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%?" veteran core contributors that they hold in high esteem because of all the years of saying smart shit and doing the work. but this is a form of social capital someone compromised by say a intelligence agency would lose very quickly. while they could hang on to it among the general population longer, the core contributors would mentally decimate their weight immediately if they saw any sign of compromise. it wouldn't matter if a million twitter personas agreed with the rogue core dev. so as you can see the system has it's uses. but it naturally perceives review bombing PRs as a sybil attack and is extremely resistant to it.

"It's outside of the fiat, corrupt, currency system." not anymore.

"So you agree - a modest increase (200 bytes) + keeping the config option would have solved the "economic gap" without the drama." not only agree in retrospect, i suggested them to do exactly that, multiple times.

"That's capture." yes, in a way and from a certain perspective it is a technocratic capture and an obfuscated shadow governance structure. but it is fairly decentralized and resistant to outside forces trying to capture it (which was a big concern of the OGs). anyhow if you all are upset about OP_RETURN, i can't wait for you to learn about the taproot annex! https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1974#issuecomment-33…

the slow erosion is already visible. but most people still can't see the writing on the wall. this is all downstream consequence of perverse narratives winning in the bitcoin memetic space for a decade now.

> If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have: > - Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient) > - Left the config option so users could choose > - Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR i agree, that would have been sufficient, and i did tell them that at the time, multiple times. mind you Luke would still have been very upset about raising OP_RETURN he actually wanted it lower and claimed before the real "consensus limit" was 40 bytes payload.

"against 93 NACKs from actual node operators" i told that Camina person who no longer exists the same thing: it's not voting. core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor. people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely (ie they get 0 weight). you don't get a vote with core. you can say something and if they think it's smart, they will listen, if they think it's dumb, they will ignore it. you can say "that's bad because it means outsiders will be disregarded", but this is how core achieves sybil resistance in decision making!

"against 93 NACKs from actual node operators" i told that Camina person who no longer exists the same thing: it's not voting. core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor. people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely (ie they get 0 weight). you don't get a vote with core. you can say something and if they think it's smart, they will listen, if they think it's dumb, they will ignore it. you can say "that's bad because it means outsiders will be disregarded", but this is how core achieves sybil resistance in decision making!

i'm saying (not admitting, wtf?) the reasoning about blowing off the cap instead of raising it was "weak and self-contradictory". i'm also saying you are jumping to conclusions hard. i have my own beef with core devs, i think they are behaving like cowards and traitors, but i simply don't believe what you have concluded has any merit. there are way simpler explanations for what happened. Antoine Poinsot was the man with the crusade in this case. and as far as i can tell he has no relations with citrea. other than trying to convince them to use OP_RETURN instead of fake outputs and going the extra mile, clearly because he believed it's the best way to do it.

i'm saying (not admitting, wtf?) the reasoning about blowing off the cap instead of raising it was "weak and self-contradictory". i'm also saying you are jumping to conclusion hard. i have my own beef with core devs, i think they are behaving like cowards and traitors, but i simply don't believe what you have concluded has any merit. there are way simpler explanations for what happened. Antoine Poinsot was the man with the crusade in this case. and as far as i can tell he has no relations with citrea. other than trying to convince them to use OP_RETURN instead of fake outputs and going the extra mile, clearly because he believed it's the best way to do it.

"the policy was changed because of their business model" no, that's a non sequitur. the policy was changed because core devs understood that there is a gap between the old OP_RETURN limit and what is economically rational to inscribe in witness script (commit-reveal). between 80 bytes and like145 bytes or something it was "economically rational" to use fake outputs. they didn't like this realization. citrea was definitely used as an example in their debates tho. the reason they gave for not putting a new cap on OP_RETURN is very weak and self contradictory tho. that's why i said it was an error imo.