Oddbean

That sucks, doesn’t it, that he didn’t fund opensats, but that’s a red herring and not the debate. Saylor’s issue is with unrestricted core development. He said as much in Livera’s podcast. ODELL implied that funding was offered but it had “strings attached”. Lightning doesn’t suck. It’s just that you want to use it for use cases it likely can’t support with its channel-based architecture. I too miss the good ol’ days when fees were low. We all knew that wasn’t going to last. It’s clear that Lightning’s destiny is to be used by large institutions and federations. We, the plebs, will be kicked off to higher L3s and federations like Liquid, fedimint and ecash. Those federations will use Lightning to exchange with each other. Don’t blame me or Saylor. Satoshi made those rules when he set in motion fee increases on L1. If you think bitcoin should be used as payment by businesses, you need to first understand Gresham’s Law and Thier’s Law. There is a natural progression and you seem to be trying to jump steps. There are no shortcuts. I’m happy to explain more. Sure, bitcoin is anti-fragile, but only if we protect the protocol. It has a weak spot which is core. Read up on the blocksize wars to understand how close the battle was. We all came close to living in Craig Wright’s world. Don’t gaslight me with the “you don’t have to update your node” bullshit. If you believe that, you don’t understand how software requires continual maintenance just to stay working. If we didn’t update our nodes, those nodes would die in a decade. A free market has choice, and there is only one monopoly here, isn’t there? I can tell your heart is in the right place but you need to start getting into the details. The core network needs to be protected and defended so we and our descendants don’t lose the gift Satoshi gave us. Don’t take its success for granted.

I can tell you’re making a lot of assumptions about me. Like I said there are projects that would’ve gotten funding through open sats including those layer 3s like cashu. And more funding can help with the maintenance. But if you think core can be corrupted and that will hurt bitcoin, then it inevitably will happen. It’s only a matter of time. But if bitcoin is anti fragile, then core can’t destroy it.

Yes, I am making a lot of assumptions about you. Feel free to correct me when I’m wrong. Anti-fragile doesn’t mean invulnerable, right? I don’t get where all this magical thinking comes from. We don’t need to defend the protocol because nothing can hurt it? I hear this a lot. It feels like some people are stuck in a fantasy game. No, our lord Satoshi did not speak the magic words and did not imbue the protocol with a magical shield. It’s up to you, me, and the rest of the community to defend it. Yes, I want payments too. I want many things. Keep in mind that we’re playing the long game here. We have a low time preference. Who said that we should have payments by now? Maybe your children or grandchildren will finally implement payments on bitcoin. People need to stop imposing they mental schedule on bitcoin. Let it develop and take over the world as it will. Just protect what matters so it has that chance.

If you’re going to make assumptions and expect me to correct you, then you’re just wasting my time and I’ll mute you. I defend bitcoin by running my own node and opting out of the soft forks that I don’t want. Simple as that. Maybe you need to reread the blocksize war because you seemed to have learned something different from what I did when I read it. Neither the devs nor the miners/corporations were able to change bitcoin during the war. It came down to the nodes.

“I defend bitcoin by running my own node and opting out of the soft forks that I don’t want.” 😂 No you don’t. You never have opted out of any soft fork. NAME ONE that you opted out of. You run core like everyone else. You trust them and run the soft forks they choose, like everyone else. You don’t even know how to permanently opt out. All you know how to do is delay the inevitable. Yeah, mute me. Then we’ll all know I was right, that I caught you in another false statement. When you couldn’t prove me wrong, you just ran and hid. “Maybe you need to reread the blocksize war because you seemed to have learned something different from what I did when I read it. Neither the devs nor the miners/corporations were able to change bitcoin during the war. It came down to the nodes.” But the core devs DID change bitcoin during the war, right? They enabled segwit. The war was a power struggle between core and the other large holders. Core proposed a soft fork while the large holders proposed hard forks. The lesson that the nodes made a choice and won the war is another little lie we tell ourselves. If you go back and carefully look at the blocksize war chronology, you’ll see that the “user activated soft fork” was threatened but never enforced. There was definite visible support for the UASF but we don’t know whether a sufficient number of nodes would have enforced to win a contentious split. The issue was moot by the time the UASF was to activate. The nodes didn’t need to enforce because the miners had already capitulated to core’s segwit change. The lesson I learned is that core devs are powerful and that in a war between a soft and hard fork, the soft fork will probably win. Why? Because the soft fork is compatible with all nodes while the hard fork is compatible with only the nodes which decide to upgrade. Many node operators are lazy, busy, or don’t care enough to bother upgrading. We can’t ignore the part that core’s software won. This supports why I believe we must be extremely careful with what goes into core.

Good advice. I’m also hoping people save their attack memes for people outside the community. In here, we should discuss and respectfully debate ideas recognizing that we’re all trying to push bitcoin forward.