why would i have to acknowledge that full rbf is the natural state?
the natural state of network was first seen. that is what satoshi implemmented and there have no good arguments have been presented why would this be bad. people learned that 0 conf is risky and implemented opt-in rbf. some people used rbf and it is a feature of the wallet not the network. And now a thing that worked perfectly fine and is a wallet issue is pushed onto nodes. this thing is pushing the network out of the natural state. incentives were perfectly fine. there is a risk and oportunity to use 0conf and rbf at the same time. a user could choose with their wallet how much risk/convinience they want. Now that chooseing is gone.

"Natural state"

And now what if it is 10 years old? must i learn to be a mechanical engineer to drive a car? Docker is new and needs new skills.  When my electrs stopped working, there was no more "just installing apps". it stopped working and every tutorial for electrs was no help for me, because i needed first to figure out how do i come to the electrs. In the mean time on umbrel nothing worked. not the blockexplorer, not LN...
I agree that maybe docker is a fine piece of software which helps a lot. At the same time we must also agree that running an umbrel node is fine... until something breaks. And until Dartchoin was on most of the umbrel support chanels, this was also an unpleasant experience.

Buidling on making things easy is something the bitcoin community must work. Ignoring regular (fiat) users is not the way to bitcoin adoption.

This thing is not going on my node.

LN is not easy to use. Maybe umbrel is easy to install. At the same time this things break. Many times i could solve it with my linux skills. However there are occasions where my node was out for month+. It uses docker which is new and thus needs new skills to acquire and maintain.
The whole balancing act is hard. Maybe it is easy for a developer. It is not like setting it up and forgeting it.

and saying 0.24 is out and there is nothing WE can do about it is just... well if i push someone over the cliff, then it is gameover. Taking down a software update is nowhere near pushing someone over the cliff, the thing is not live on the public download...

Please look at the 0conf issue from the side of a normal fiat user. Its tempting to look at it from the developers side. Its very hard to be against 0conf if you understand that you will need to wait at the ATM. Look at this issue from a perspective of an individual, who has only a signing device and no node. Or he has a node, but not a LN node. its hard to manage a LN node.


Why? Why would this point be now?
You do not know how companies are gonna adress the changes and at the same time, that is perfectly fine?
everyone knows 0conf tx is riski. and after the update it will still be. the only change is that 0 conf are not possible anymore.



The problem with LN has been presented before. It is not used widely enough.
If i wanna use it selfcustodyed, then i need to learn channel balancing and i do not know what all things. The other way i could do is to trust someone to have a LN node and he does all his work (an LSP like breez). But that is not self custody. LN has come a long way in the terms of usability. The two bugs that happened recently shut down my node...
Right now LN is not in a state to push it on everyone. LN is still "beta".
Onchain is the lowest layer and it has functioned realy well and stable. And still is. This change is taking a "hack" away, where companies used it as a good UX way. Developers are now taking that away, for no apparent reason. The bussines already know it was risky.

please explain me, how  will i get fiat from an bitcoin ATM in an instant with this new update?

Hi.
In my town we have a few different companies with bitcoin ATMs. In my town we have two. They differ in the way that one needs 0 confirmation and i can withdraw fiat, the second needs 1 conf.
We all now that 1 conf can take every where from 1minute - 50 minutes. And yes. There was a time when i needed to wait 50 minutes and check mempool space when the block was mined. It was not at least pleasant.
You can see which of the two ATMs is more popular with me. The 0 conf ATM gives me fiat like experience.
The 0 conf ATM is also the more widely spread one in my country. The company that runs it obviously knows what risk 0 conf means for them and it obviosuly knows what benefit and userexperience it gives their users.

If this update stops that 0 conf UX. Then i think we all must be aware that it is starting to produce a split. If i read the blocksize wars correctly, then possibly a fork.
Please be aware that this change puts significantly implications in the social consensus layer.
I will most certainly not update any of my nodes with this update.

And if this thing also harm creating of just in time LN channels.... than i do not know who exactly is for bitcoin adoption.

Maybe the current update is good. But in the current circuimstances of adoption bitcoin it makes more harm than good.

Developers please reconsider what this update is achieving in the social layer and if we realy need it right now.
I strongly advice to retract it.