Core are compromised and corrupted to their core.
By hodlonaut
Replying to @ajtowns
Hi Anthony,
Since you did not reply to my DM about right of reply questions for my last article, I will try to reach you here.
On the topic of spam and spammers:
May 2, 2025: instagibbs files the OP_RETURN uncap PR #32406. Eleven seconds after the bot announces it in #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel, instagibbs writes "fanquake please lock for now."
fanquake locks the PR within the same minute. You then add the "Needs release note" label to the now-locked PR.
Fifteen minutes later you joke on IRC about labels being a way to "inscribe comments via github label edits."
Four operational acts by three devs that were instrumental in the OP_RETURN uncap sequence, inside a sixteen-minute window. The PR was filed, lock-requested, locked, and label-administered before any community engagement could begin.
Four questions:
1: Was the sequence prearranged?
2: Do you consider this a proper and responsible way to conduct Bitcoin development on a contested protocol change?
3: Considering the great controversy and polarization, was your inscription joke fitting for the moment?
4: The same three of you, you and instagibbs and fanquake, ACKed and merged PR #27832 in June and August 2023, the documentation amendment that narrowed the scope of -datacarriersize, later used to close Luke's filter patch. The same three then executed the May 2 sequence on and around the PR that would uncapOP_RETURN. Coincidence?
By hodlonaut
Replying to @ajtowns
Hi Anthony,
Since you did not reply to my DM about right of reply questions for my last article, I will try to reach you here.
On the topic of spam and spammers:
May 2, 2025: instagibbs files the OP_RETURN uncap PR #32406. Eleven seconds after the bot announces it in #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel, instagibbs writes "fanquake please lock for now."
fanquake locks the PR within the same minute. You then add the "Needs release note" label to the now-locked PR.
Fifteen minutes later you joke on IRC about labels being a way to "inscribe comments via github label edits."
Four operational acts by three devs that were instrumental in the OP_RETURN uncap sequence, inside a sixteen-minute window. The PR was filed, lock-requested, locked, and label-administered before any community engagement could begin.
Four questions:
1: Was the sequence prearranged?
2: Do you consider this a proper and responsible way to conduct Bitcoin development on a contested protocol change?
3: Considering the great controversy and polarization, was your inscription joke fitting for the moment?
4: The same three of you, you and instagibbs and fanquake, ACKed and merged PR #27832 in June and August 2023, the documentation amendment that narrowed the scope of -datacarriersize, later used to close Luke's filter patch. The same three then executed the May 2 sequence on and around the PR that would uncapOP_RETURN. Coincidence?
45❤️6❤️1🤙1
