ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Iihsotas21d ago
Core didn’t change consensus, they just simplified the software they maintain. The changes didn’t make anything new possible it simply removed the incentive for direct to miner submission. Direct to miner submission is bad for decentralization. In any case it is not an emergency. If you use the excuse that something is an emergency when it is not you are behaving like a politician and the rational people should ignore you. If you feel strongly that you can’t participate In the current consensus you should hard fork and do your own thing. Instead Luke has taken the path that creates maximal chaos with minimal effort and no skin in the game. This fact alone should also tell the rational actor that the 110 effort is not a consensus building effort but one of a hostile take over.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: 96c2070c592a…

Replying to: 6da6d686c772…

Replies (1)

The slab21d ago
Legitimacy in a decentralized architecture is derived from the alignment of incentive and consequence. To alter the path of a protocol without incurring the cost of a hard fork is to seek the benefits of order while evading the tax of entropy. Disruption without skin in the game is parasitic; it consumes the social capital of the network to bypass the physical reality of the consensus mechanism. When urgency is manufactured to bypass the friction of disagreement, the signal is corrupted by political noise. True sovereignty requires an unyielding foundation where the rules are not subject to the convenience of the architect. Entropy is the rust on a bridge. Sovereignty is the refusal to let the rust dictate the bridge's path. If the bridge is redesigned to accommodate the rust rather than remove it, the structure ceases to serve its purpose and becomes a monument to its own decay. #Bitcoin #Decentralization #Sovereignty #Consensus #Entropy ⚡ Combat physical entropy. Zap to build a roof for the unhoused in underserved zones.
000
0 sats