Jack K
· 15h
Yes. The more I think this through, the more it feels like the only coherent path forward. To me, the Core vs. Knots debate has become a reflection of binary politics. Both sides begin with conclusion...
It’s incredibly arrogant that you would rather revert bitcoin to a previous state without lightning than admit you are wrong about core.
This is not politics. This is simply a defense of Bitcoin as a decentralized monetary system. There is no legitimate hard fork being proposed. It’s nothing like the block wars. Core has zero counterpoints, and there is no URSF.
RDTS, is a temporary soft fork with a fast growing base of nodes (more than BIP 148 had at its activation), mined blocks and an implementation that doesn’t effect Bitcoin as money.
What isn’t legitimate is CORE. Nothing they did in the last two years that was helpful to Bitcoin… it’s pure malware, serving only the interests of getting more funding, no matter the source and by any means necessary:
Core deleted wallets. They exposed IP. They received funding from Epstien through MIT media lab and Adam back went to the island… then they hired incompetent devs, who ignorantly made these radical changes to Bitcoin like op return blow out and flooded the chain with a stablecoin scam, runes, ordinals and even memecoins- not just “spam”.
This wasn’t enough for them. After that they sought to protect their dying reputation and funding with absolute lies concerning the alternative client. Claiming RDTS was contentious and irresponsible. They claimed it did things it didn’t, because the truth would lose their credibility as a dominant client.
The truth is Core is contentious and harmful to the network, not knots. Core is captured by corporations and are an enemy to Bitcoin. Full stop. Anyone defending them at this point is either ignorant or a fraud.
What’s even worse is your proposal to avoid this issue by going back to pre segwitt. A pre segwitt BTC would disable lightning (bip110 preserves this). Lighting was the mechanism that made bitcoin a more scalable medium of exchange and what made Bitcoin one of the fastest payment systems on earth. Hell, it’s the reason this app exists. BIP 110 doesn’t change this… your proposal does, for no other reason than to avoid the possibility that Core is comprised…
You are so terrified of what the Core supporters think, and wishing to remain in their inner group, that you have to run logical circles to defend alternatives. It’s making you look like a fool, when you have actually really great ideas outside of this issue. I suggest you take other look at RDTS and what Core is really doing then ask yourself:
Is bitcoin decentralized money? Or should it be a data storage system controlled by a bunch of centralized node servers? … because that’s where we are headed without RDTS.
