Foundry’s node will check the rules. If you node agrees or not, is irrelevant, as is your implementation choice.

Core developers have made themselves useless:
Why would anyone run a core node?

Not with the entire computing market: with the ones (very few) who choose to mine with their cpu.

I believe energy consumption is the deciding factor, and not mining hardware: mining with cpus also consumes energy and if one chooses to do so, might as well go for the most efficient per watt.
Since anyone who wants to mine (and spend energy doing it, which will cost more than hardware), can also buy asics, the field is leveled. capex will always manifest in more hardware in the hands of large players who can also get better deals on large buys, and keep buying recent, more powerfull cpus.

So, I think decentralization is not dependent on hardware but on how much money people choose to spend on mining, regardless of doing so with cpu or asics.

What difference does randomx make?
Can’t centralization efforts buy millions of cpus?

Appreciate your ideas.
Do you have one on how to make btc decentralized again (or ever)?

Hmmm… still disagree with the cycle theory. Free people doing free choices will create random patterns (like stock charts). That was btc premise.
For me, cycle theory is just like trading TA (technical analysis): driving while watching the rear view mirror.
I guess I will keep my wrong opinion a while longer :)
Thank you for taking the time to answer!

I have trouble accepting the ideia of macro cycles as inevitable.
Spending or saving is an individual choice: some people (or business) are spending, some are saving. You can even have cycles in your life, but not in sync with everyone else. It’s not a trend.
We can only have trends in a centralised game (and yes, we have that).

And that was one area where bitcoin (would have) changed everything. As it was decentralised (or the illusion of it), the only centralized rules were set and known in advance: halving and supply.
Btc/usd ratio (price) was, then, the equilibrium between demand (adoption) and supply (impacted by mining/halving).
This equilibrium got shaken every 4 years by halving (supply), which created a noticeable break in the trend.
Hence the idea of a 4 year cycle.

The latest (and worst) bull market, was a consequence of In the last halving, further reducing its imapct in the equilibrium, and fiat games (etf and mstr) entering the game: price descovery became muted, and has been as so since.

So, my view is that, in terms of price, since macro cycles don’t apply to btc, and fundamentals that drew adoption have been rewriten since last weekend, it’s all downhill from now.
Except if the “scripters” choose to pump btc.
Why would they?

What makes you believe in cycle terms, still?
Being captured means the price also moves according to a script. Like any other fiat asset.
Why would btc/usd ratio be higher in two years?
Why would “they” pump a shitcoin?

Yes, that’s a great framework you offer on your articles. Thank you for taking the time to write and share it!

Monero as digital cash, not store of value. Yes… makes sense as so.
I can accept leaning more on trust for small amounts and daily usage.

But store of value is the grand goal.
This is how I imagined it going:


I understand it might come as naive according to your framework, and the recent developments confirm that.

So yes: Maybe I was choosing to believe a lie… but it’s hard to let go of such a beautifull dream! :)

Good to have you back!

I share your general feeling and also your worries.
However, I applaud Luke for not giving up (like I did after the mandatory date attack) and really coming up with a plan and putting it to action (don’t mean to play down on other contributors, it’s just that Luke is the most vocal, and also the one taking most of the hate).

While I see lots of people ready to criticize and complain about the options presented by the team, I have not yet came across a better alternative.
I’ve heard DA change proposal and also the ideia of trying to recapture core. I don’t think any of these is the right way do address what is happening: this is an attack made by miners, and bitcoin must use its most adequate defense: pow change.
There must be a clear and symmetrical answer why this stunt should never be tried again.

I believe this is the best move, it is needed, and I am very gratefull for having a team capable of doing it on such short notice on our side.
We don’t need champions. Spamcoin has champions.
Decentralization does not need champions: we need builders!
Lets go!

Curious about your mention of monero…
My view is that it addresses many of the shortcomings of btc, but at the expense of complexity and, as so, more need for learning (your time is limited so it would impact the other spheres of your life) or trusting (not an option).
But even if you put the time to it, ultimately, it will face the same problem of being vulnerable to social attacks, bad choices, and capture, if it gets enough adoption.
You have to fix “capturability”, not technology.