@matteopelleg Badly worded. Of all the Bitcoiner names that show up in the files (Blue Matt, Michael Saylor, Greg Max, Austin Hill, Kanzure, Jeremy Ruben, Andy Back) every single one of them has made public comments against BIP110.
Number of tweets about "digitial capital": countless
Number of tweets about running a node: 1
Regardless of the BIP-110 proposal, I don't expect the owner of an orange washed stock to understand the importance of defending nodes.
Number of tweets about "digitial capital": countless
Number of tweets about running a node: 1
Regardless of the BIP-110 proposal, I don't expect the owner of an orange washed stock to understand the importance of defending nodes.
Big Bitcoin doesn't want you running a node or taking direct control over your money.
OCEAN gives you a 50% discount on fees if you do.
There are a few good business that push their users to act in a way that improves decentralization, they deserve to be celebrated for it.
Template construction is well on the way to becoming decentralized.
BIP110 is required for this to have any significance.
Miner-side template construction is irrelevant if we're centralized at the node level.
Samson, last fall you told two podcasts (clips attached) that Core had
- "a lot of structural problems with the organization itself"
- developers with "ulterior motives" doing "conflicted" things
- a "laundry list": "backstabbing, internal politics, brigading, canceling people."
You also said: "you'll get it eventually. I think it'll come to light."
You knew about the issues, but waited for someone else to do the work.
I did the work documenting this. Three articles (so far). IRS filings, SEC exhibits, PRs, IRC logs, archives, right of reply.
The very structural and governance-related problems, documented line by line. My articles assert none of the motives you asserted. You went further on those podcasts than my articles ever go.
And now that this all has come to light, meticulously sourced and documented, your response is: "some individuals doing questionable things," a little "cliques and groupthink", and a retweet of Adam calling the process "uniquely robust to special interest lobbies."
This is the exact opposite of your own diagnosis on those podcasts.
It's very strange to describe and predict that serious and very problematic dirty laundry will air, then call it a non-issue and join Adam's handwaving and misdirection when someone airs it.
Since i feel like we're all back together and I have decent connections to most opinions on this topic, I'm curious...
Do you support the BIP110 soft fork?