关键字

添加
  • hodlonaut

    2天前

    By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles.

    Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project.

    You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself.

    Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay.

    When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater.

    Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard.

    As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice

    Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact.

    It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice.

    The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.”

    Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience.

    The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.

  • npub1a72p3ky9nhe0...

    12小时前

    Chess not checkers. To many people home school to protect their kids. This is great but you also mus

  • Ronin

    15小时前

    the point is, just bc it's a consensus change it doesn't have to be a HF, even though imo HFs are te

  • npub1z6yhh745p8l3...

    16小时前

    This isn’t going to blow over. \n\nThe bigger picture is that Core v30 demonstrated #bitcoin s only

  • Weatherall

    16小时前

    can you add any clarity to this groping of mine?\n\nnostr:note17f86lgn87zghnrmq48aemlhgflxc3ussj58kg

  • Weatherall

    16小时前

    might have been wrong bruh... been digging - not that core is correct at all - but that the issue is

  • npub17advfxxnuppt...

    20小时前

    Segwit was a multi year battle and included a hard fork (bch). It eventually aligned the technical

  • Tauri

    22小时前

    2 & 3) blocks don’t need to be full for Bitcoin to function as intended. So any additional storage u

  • npub1m8dtq3n0n9lg...

    1天前

    lol, my friend you need to do your own research before making a comment like that. \n\nHe has a degr

  • Neal

    1天前

    I think bitcoin is very anti-fragile.\nSatoshi knew bad actors would attack it. I think his consensu

  • walker

    1天前

    没有更多记录
发送
登录 注册>>

资料修改成功

取消 确定
29%
正在上传
网络连接中