Oddbean

Read the OP Again. Literally everyone already agrees with the slow and steady changes that's not the dangerous part of his message. What's dangerous is the false narratives that bitcoin core is "big protocol" and "centrally planned" and only ran by "12 developers" which is exactly the lies that Ver used to start a civl war.

"Literally everyone already agrees with the slow and steady changes" This is so wrong. I don't know where you're getting this. People are pushing for OP CAT. That's not slow and steady. Core devs THEMSELVES are deeply concerned about the amount of power of they have. Saylor didn't come up with his ideas himself, he got them from core devs.

There's a few loud people on twitter pushing for OP_CAT but do you see it activated? Nope. Because most *ACTUAL* bitcoin developers are extremely conservative. The problem is he's implying there's a "them" a "team" a "big protocol" and that they don't know what they're doing. Because of this I can only assume in the future he may use this to try to gain favor to take control of the repo similar to what the NYA did in the blocksize wars and so I'm trying to caution people about this possible future.

You're using the fact that OP CAT isn't activated yet as evidence that it's a marginal idea. Ok. Saylor's trying to explain why he pushed against ARK ETF funneling money to OpenSats, which Odell called him out for. He's saying that a constant waterfall of money with no strings attached will CREATE Big Protocol, and busybody developers will find ways to tap into that cash flow. This is a very real concern and this type of things happens often in the corporate/nonprofit world. He made a solid argument and a clear explanation for it. I think OpenSats is probably not so easily gamed, at least for the time being, but ETF profit donations may be hard to turn off, so forethought and caution are warranted here. Still I think people should donate to OpenSats.

>You're using the fact that OP CAT isn't activated yet as evidence that it's a marginal idea. Ok. No. I pay attention to actual developers instead of loud non-devs on twitter. There's not even close to enough funding for devs to create "Big Protocol", also that's now how "Big Protocol" gets created, it would get created from government that creates "Big everything else". A terrible take when discussing FOSS and donations to developers of those projects. What's actually concerning is how he's actively trying to lobby people against bitcoin core just like Roger did which started a civil war.

>I just listened to his interview interview Oh yah? How many red flags do you need? 1. He's advocating for scaling via centralized entities because he thinks L1 is done. 2. He compares updating bitcoin to updating the bible. 3. He conflates FOSS dev on bitcoin core with "big protocol" and calls it "central planning" implying it's not there via consensus 4. He implies bitcoin core does not understand the implications of their actions 5. He asserts that all changes to the protocol are "inflation" 6. He asserts that Satoshi "played god" as a reason why we should not update it further And btw he's actively discouraging people from donating to FOSS bitcoin developers.