core overstepped by loosening default relay policy amid disagreement but it did not change consensus rules
people were already running modified nodes relaying all this garbage
I think that overstep was more than an overstep and they also neglected mainenance, like fixing the inscriptions hack. Without accusing anyone of anything, I can't help but notice that both the actions and inactions all pointed in the same direction of allowing shitcoinery on the network.
Bitcoin is money. Anything that can be done to tighten parameters to shut down non-monetary uses that crop up or sneak in a unintended consequences of other changes, without breaking existing monetary uses, should be done because that is responsible maintenance.
It narrows the state space, reduces the attack surface and supports keeping the network distributed by keeping the block light.
From a purely technical perspective (I've got no tribal dog here, and my local community if very core-centric, and I am friends with core devs) 110 really looks like a maintenance catch-up after some neglect.
Don't shoot but that's my honest read on the technical picture and somebody who has built and maintained software-based systems for a very long time.
Instead of fighting about this we could be focusing on making sure that 110 is a technically correct tightening of the bolts. No reason it should be anything else.
If there are specific, concrete issues, I am sure they can be fixed if brought to light.
Bitcoin is money. Anything that can be done to tighten parameters to shut down non-monetary uses that crop up or sneak in a unintended consequences of other changes, without breaking existing monetary uses, should be done because that is responsible maintenance.
It narrows the state space, reduces the attack surface and supports keeping the network distributed by keeping the block light.
From a purely technical perspective (I've got no tribal dog here, and my local community if very core-centric, and I am friends with core devs) 110 really looks like a maintenance catch-up after some neglect.
Don't shoot but that's my honest read on the technical picture and somebody who has built and maintained software-based systems for a very long time.
Instead of fighting about this we could be focusing on making sure that 110 is a technically correct tightening of the bolts. No reason it should be anything else.
If there are specific, concrete issues, I am sure they can be fixed if brought to light.
