Shouldn't Coredev be Bitcoin Maximalist?

[Ambatman]

Okay I couldn't think of a good subject /title.

This idea came as a result of Gloria recent words "These like nutty, carnivore, narrow minded, redneck #bitcoin maximalists"
I don't really know how people see it, but I believed Bitcoin maximalist are individuals that care about decentralization not that other coins are scam
Even if majority are.

So it brought the question, shouldn't a Coredev for Bitcoin be a maximalist?
I know people think it's a narrow minded POV. Like I said I believe it means staying true to Bitcoin ethos.


Another point was her answer on NFT. She said if it's reasonably done (if I remember correctly)
Who decides what's reasonable?
What is considered reasonable?



No I'm not trying to attack anyone. Just confused on the thought process can't really compare to her knowledge
So there might be something I don't know.

[FinneysTrueVision]

That quote about Bitcoin maximalists is from a 5 year old interview. People are spinning her words into whatever fits their agenda to get YouTube views and social media impressions.

Spells of Genesis and RarePepes were the original non fungible tokens. These were harmless things people had fun with in the early Bitcoin days. The way they were aggressively marketed by celebrities and grifter influencers looking to get rich quick might have changed the perception, but I don’t think they are inherently nefarious.

[ABCbits]

Another point was her answer on NFT. She said if it's reasonably done (if I remember correctly)
Who decides what's reasonable?
What is considered reasonable?

Since you don't provide source to her statement, all i can say is i agree it's reasonable if she talk about NFT on Bitcoin sidechain or layer 2.

Spells of Genesis and RarePepes were the original non fungible tokens. These were harmless things people had fun with in the early Bitcoin days. The way they were aggressively marketed by celebrities and grifter influencers looking to get rich quick might have changed the perception, but I don’t think they are inherently nefarious.

IMO it may be because they weren't that popular, where it doesn't affect people who create financial/monetary TX in terms of fee rate or confirmation time.

[Ambatman]

That quote about Bitcoin maximalists is from a 5 year old interview. People are spinning her words into whatever fits their agenda to get YouTube views and social media impressions.

Really? Wasn't aware of that. But still that shows what they believed in 5 years ago  
I doubt it has changed because now many consider maximalist as toxic and narrow minded.

Since you don't provide source to her statement, all i can say is i agree it's reasonable if she talk about NFT on Bitcoin sidechain or layer 2.

I thought many still prefer Layer 1 for immutability.
The source https://x.com/Laserman_21/status/1989444886937178279?t=2-NZ8xLq_PWuX0JVAellHw&s=09
It reminds me of this
Give someone an inch, they will take a mile.

[Furball808]

So it brought the question, shouldn't a Coredev for Bitcoin be a maximalist?
I know people think it's a narrow minded POV. Like I said I believe it means staying true to Bitcoin ethos.

It is not a requirement. Being a bitcoin maximalist doesn't make one more or less capable of contributing to bitcoin. A coredev is more of an engineer than a philosopher so he doesn't have to be a bitcoin maximalist as long as he does what is needed. I also think that a coredev must maintain an open mind to see what could possibly be introduced to the network in the future. He must be objective and not an extremist. But if a coredev is a maximalist, nothing wrong too. I just do not think it is a requirement.

Another point was her answer on NFT. She said if it's reasonably done (if I remember correctly)
Who decides what's reasonable?
What is considered reasonable?

Since you don't provide source to her statement, all i can say is i agree it's reasonable if she talk about NFT on Bitcoin sidechain or layer 2.

Spells of Genesis and RarePepes were the original non fungible tokens. These were harmless things people had fun with in the early Bitcoin days. The way they were aggressively marketed by celebrities and grifter influencers looking to get rich quick might have changed the perception, but I don’t think they are inherently nefarious.

IMO it may be because they weren't that popular, where it doesn't affect people who create financial/monetary TX in terms of fee rate or confirmation time.

She has a point. The way people marketed NFTs as get rich quick schemes have changed its image and reputation.

[_act_]

So it brought the question, shouldn't a Coredev for Bitcoin be a maximalist?
I know people think it's a narrow minded POV. Like I said I believe it means staying true to Bitcoin ethos.

Bitcoin core developer can be a bitcoin maximalist or not, it depends on his own opinion and people should respect his own opinion. He should not be a bitcoin maximalist just because he is a bitcoin developer but because of how he see it.

Not all bitcoin developers will be bitcoin maximalist but I doubt it because of how the altcoins are full of shit coins and dead coins.

[headingnorth]

Zhao is a diehard shitcoiner who receives millions of dollars from Wall Street and the crypto lobby.
She could be best described as a bitcoin minimalist.

Zhao has worked on dozens of altcoin projects and taught classes on how to start a crypto IPO including memecoins.
She is a scam artist. That such a person is in a high position of power in charge of development
tells me all I need to know about the direction bitcoin has taken, and it is not a good one. It is very bad.

Decentralization is an illusion. It doesn't exist when so much power and control is concentrated in the hands of the few (developers).
You can trust the code, but the code can be changed at will and corrupted by those who have direct control over it.

[d5000]

This idea came as a result of Gloria recent words "These like nutty, carnivore, narrow minded, redneck #bitcoin maximalists"

I just had seen that interview, and I had understood her words a bit differently: she is against Bitcoin maximalists if they are gatekeepy and narrow-minded.

So basically I interpreted she's only against the most extreme group of Bitcoin maximalists.

I've searched the web a bit and according to an interview in 2022 she seems to be a moderate maximalist, in the sense that she believes Bitcoin is superior to altcoins, which operate on a different "threat model" and do not offer the security Bitcoin does.  See this summary (quote is at the end of the article) of her appearance in the "Bitcoin Bottom Line" podcast in 2022.

That seems a reasonable stance for a Core developer, for me.

Another point was her answer on NFT. She said if it's reasonably done (if I remember correctly)

As far as I have understood that this doesn't seem to have referred to NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain but to NFTs in general, and if the interview was 5 years ago, then she very likely was referring to NFTs on Ethereum and other altchains. So well, why should she prohibit anyone to use NFTs on altcoins? "Consume responsibly" imo refers to not ride any hype.

That interview has absolutely nothing to do with the current OP_RETURN debate thus, even if it was recently quoted by a Knots supporter.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I really don't care, and this is one of the virtues of the free market. You use software and generally "stuff" that were produced by people that you might hate if you ever met them in real life. I don't care if Bitcoin Core developers believe in crypto-anarchy, or libertarianism, or even sound money. They're not in that position because of carrying that knowledge, but because of their technical competence.

I think Luke had mentioned that he believes anarchocapitalism is the intersection of the worst evils-- capitalism and anarchy. And imagine this is an OG dev.

[Ambatman]

So basically I interpreted she's only against the most extreme group of Bitcoin maximalists.

This made me go back to watch the video and again confirm that she said that was her definition
So subjective Imo since I consider those that believe Bitcoin is superior but not the best in everything(but best money; couldn't help myself) as maximalist.

Edit: Maybe is the cold here, missing details. She stated purist. Meaning she was calling purist narrow minded.
Again could be wrong.

That interview has absolutely nothing to do with the current OP_RETURN debate thus, even if it was recently quoted by a Knots supporter.

Just found out recently that the video is an old video resurfaced by knot to support their claim that Coredev are planning to turn Bitcoin to a shitcoin.
But would like to add she did state at the start before "I got to Bitcoin".

I really don't care, and this is one of the virtues of the free market. You use software and generally "stuff" that were produced by people that you might hate if you ever met them in real life. I don't care if Bitcoin Core developers believe in crypto-anarchy, or libertarianism, or even sound money.

Hmmm in a nutshell if I'm not mistaken you don't care why they are using the sword as long as they can use the sword
Don't mind my analogy.

[moneystery]

I think that Bitcoin coredev is like a circle of cardinals in the Catholic church, not all cardinals are equally good, you will find one or more cardinals who have thoughts that are contrary to Christian teachings that carry their own agenda and think that he is much greater than Jesus himself.
Similarly, coredevs may be more shitty than they seem and might push ideas that serve their own influence, ego, or personal agenda rather than the protocol's best interests. They're only there because they have some computer knowledge, but they don't really care about Bitcoin itself. That's what I see.

[Dogedegen]

Okay I couldn't think of a good subject /title.

This idea came as a result of Gloria recent words "These like nutty, carnivore, narrow minded, redneck #bitcoin maximalists"
I don't really know how people see it, but I believed Bitcoin maximalist are individuals that care about decentralization not that other coins are scam
Even if majority are.

You are confusing maximalism that is cypherpunk oriented and maximalism that is cult like. The former is very good, the latter is horrible. She is referring to those that are narrow minded in this way, dismissing everything without even listening to it. That behavior is universally bad, there is nothing to debate here. It is factual, regardless of where this cult like behavior appears.

So it brought the question, shouldn't a Coredev for Bitcoin be a maximalist?

No. You don't get to decide the personality of someone who contributes good code to Bitcoin. That is the beauty of open source.

I know people think it's a narrow minded POV. Like I said I believe it means staying true to Bitcoin ethos.

It does not always mean that, no.

Another point was her answer on NFT. She said if it's reasonably done (if I remember correctly)
Who decides what's reasonable?
What is considered reasonable?

Nobody needs to decide anything. If you use your car to play soccer on the street, you are stupid. If you use your car to drive to the intended destination using roads that are appropriate for the car then you are reasonable. The same is said with NFTs. There are many good use cases for this technology, where non fungibility is needed. Scamming people with artistic pictures is not such an use case.

[Cookdata]

I think that Bitcoin coredev is like a circle of cardinals in the Catholic church, not all cardinals are equally good, you will find one or more cardinals who have thoughts that are contrary to Christian teachings that carry their own agenda and think that he is much greater than Jesus himself.
Similarly, coredevs may be more shitty than they seem and might push ideas that serve their own influence, ego, or personal agenda rather than the protocol's best interests. They're only there because they have some computer knowledge, but they don't really care about Bitcoin itself. That's what I see.

You see this core Dev debate, if you haven't study them properly you will think siding some groups will do any better but the more you study each groups, the more you see reasons why they troll each other and why some factions have different opinions with what decentralization should be and their influence within the developers space.

These Nfts things has caused alot sparks among them, some of them believes there are certain benefits some developer stands to gain, not like they are against what is right and what is wrong on the chain, they support decentralization, they support any form of censorship resistance but the fact that there people that gains so much value on this Nft while they get nothing piss some of them. Some developers claim there are key backers funding nfts and all these things; at a point I just stop following this their fight.

[krach]

There is no "Maximalist" set of conduct. The term has changed over time. It used to be a form of scam prevention for noobs and somehow got turned into a strange mix of right wing politics. So no the devs should be based on their code skills and not much else.

Who is going to enforce his ideology? What central committe gets to perform the purity test?

If we have a look at Luke, he thinks most of us are going directly to hell. Keep that in mind....

[Ucy]

Loyalty and main focus should be Bitcoin. This doesn't mean non-scam altcoins that actually decentralize things and follow other fair Bitcoin ideals should be condemned/attacked. They shouldn't get too much attention either, otherwise it becomes like an apple developer cheerleading or promoting android or an organisation head promoting a competitor and more shamefully a copycat one.

[gmaxwell]

any maintainer at least should be loyal to Bitcoin for sure...

but that isn't what 'maximalist' has come to mean most often, it's a particular brand of culty stupid behavior that might well be reducing bitcoin adoption.

Their hero now is a no coiner and his fiat paid flukies and their most significant activity now has been to spread baseless fud about it being illegal to run nodes.

If that's what being a 'maximalist' is, no wonder many are happy to not be part of that.

The current 'maximalist' brand is not people loyal to Bitcoin, it's not people who love Bitcoin.  They're people that don't even *get* bitcoin: they think they should get to judge users and usages as acceptable or not-- that's the world that Bitcoin was designed to offer an alternative to and not Bitcoin.  I'd say they forgot that Bitcoin is For Enemies-- except they probably never knew it to begin with.

They seem to only love the sound of their own hysterical wailing, and they're only loyal to promoting whatever fear allows them to claim that they're important, that they're relevant, and that Bitcoin is currently failing.

It's just performative.  The people who are yelling the loudest about how patriotic they are, about how trust worthy they are, etc. .. are usually the least.