Why Bitcoin Core should stay the main Bitcoin implementation?

[PepeLapiu]

That really looks good and is exactly what I was wishing I think it has active support from Core devs and thus has some chance to materialize. It seems however still WIP and I either haven't found an ETA.

It's interesting that some Core devs, like the new maintainer "sedited" (aka TheCharlatan), think that this could even be a step towards "solving" disagreements over policy decisions like the "spam" debate. Maybe even PepeLapiu approves it See https://blockspace.media/insight/a-conversation-with-bitcoin-cores-newest-maintainer/

I don't know much about him. So I can't form an opinion. But that he was nominated by maxi hating shitcoiner DEI hire Zhao makes me suspicious of him. And that he was ACK by a bunch of shitcoin devs also makes me nervous about him.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of work would be required to reform and save core. Dare I say too much work?

[d5000]

I'm of the opinion that a lot of work would be required to reform and save core. Dare I say too much work?

In the final "installment" of the sequence of events that would lead to a modular Core, Core would not take care anymore about node policy.

And policy was the essence of the debate.

You could then import libbitcoinkernel into your own node implementation and choose whatever policy you want as a default. So why do you need a "reform" in this situation? Only because you hate the Core devs?

The only problem of this arrangement is that policy default values could lead again to a more diverse policy values landscape, e.g. some sticking with the old OP_RETURN limit, some with some intermediate value, and some with the complete freedom of Core 30. And that, again, would weaken the compact block mechanism.

But it's likely even with libbitcoinkernel a dominant Bitcoin implementation would emerge, and most would use the most proven one with the best maintainers (not the ones with the "best ideology", mind you, but those who technically can guarantee a safe client). As long as the consensus isn't touched I would not care if it's called Core or Knots or whatever.

[PepeLapiu]

I'm of the opinion that a lot of work would be required to reform and save core. Dare I say too much work?

In the final "installment" of the sequence of events that would lead to a modular Core, Core would not take care anymore about node policy.

I don't know what you are talking about. But the idea of a decentralized mempool policy decided by each and every node sounds pretty good to me.

You could then import libbitcoinkernel into your own node implementation and choose whatever policy you want as a default.

Never heard of libbitcoinkernel before. So I'll have to look into that. No clue what you are talking about here.

So why do you need a "reform" in this situation? Only because you hate the Core devs?

Please stop making such reductionist statements. Core pays lip service to "bitcoin as money" while actively promoting spam on chain. They trashed an ordinal filter as "too controversial" yet they still don't think blowing up the op_return filter was too controversial. Even after they lost 25% of their nodes to Knots and caused a reactionary soft fork. They refer to spam as "use cases we have today" and they refer to spammers as "users who need arbitrary data on chain".

And this is why "I need a reform", buddy.

The only problem of this arrangement is that policy default values could lead again to a more diverse policy values landscape, e.g. some sticking with the old OP_RETURN limit, some with some intermediate value, and some with the complete freedom of Core 30. And that, again, would weaken the compact block mechanism.

Yes, freedom and decentralised mempool policy is a messy thing. That's the arguement coretards make: "We need a standardized and centralized mempool policy to save bitcoin."

Are you buying it? I'm not.

But it's likely even with libbitcoinkernel a dominant Bitcoin implementation would emerge, and most would use the most proven one with the best maintainers (not the ones with the "best ideology", mind you, but those who technically can guarantee a safe client). As long as the consensus isn't touched I would not care if it's called Core or Knots or whatever.

Consensus was touched to implement Segwit and Taproot. But it's only now that BIP110 is being implemented that you suddenly don't want to touch consensus?

We are going to fix the bugs and exploits in Segwit and Taproot. With or without you. But please do join us. You'll love being a Knotzi. You'll get to strangle cute puppies like the rest of us Knotzies love to do.