> 1) I think mempool filters different from fee-rate are long-term incentive incompatible and can't be relied upon or enforced consistently in adversarial scenarios. In this, me and you mostly agree.
Yeah, strong agreement there.
> and it was not at all urgent
Meh. As long as we are moving in the correct long term direction. I have a low time preference
And with respect to the min relay fee, it actaully materially degraded the performance of several features of the node
> nor fair to change Core's defaults to "own them" in this debate: LibreRelay was more then enough to prove the point
If I thought that the Core devs were all blue haired trans lefty woke people, I would be delighted with the fact they lost control over relay policy.
> especially in the sloppy way it has been done.
This is what I really do not care about. I agree with the change on a technical level, no matter how sloppy it was.
If the developers had a special arrangement with a doctor doing a medical gender transition surgery, such that they would stop the medical procedure half the way through, and press the merge button to increase the OP_Return relay default, then continue with the medical procedure, who the fuck cares? The code should be judged on merit.
So its not that we disagree on if it was done in a sloppy way or not. I simply do not care if it was sloppy. So that is an example in why I say I kind of agree with you on everything. We either agree or you have some view that I do not care about, rather than disagreeing.
> I side with many cultural and procedural criticism to Core's repo management in recent years, mostly aligning with Atak's and Hodlonaut's criticism. In this, me and you mostly disagree.
As for Hodlonaut, to me he seems right in theory, in that any generic group of people is likely to develop the weaknesses he claims exist in Core. It is just that I think he didn't correctly identify which specific social groups had the power and influence and in which specific ways the problems manifested in the code. For example I watched Bitcoin quite closely when Newbery was active. I am pretty sure he wasnt a highly influential person pulling strings behind the scenes to get things done. And if he was, what specfic technical weakness did that result in? Maybe there were highly influential people explioting biases and other social dynamics to have influence behind the scenes, as one may expect in any group, I just do not think it was Newbery.
As for Atack, I have some sympathy with his views. I think its fine to critisize the culture and procedures of Bitcoin Core, and to say they have bad governance practises. But, as I tried to explain to Atack, it needs to be explained and linked more closely to a negative technical impact these issues have on noderunners. I feel much of the critisim does not lead anyway. i.e. there is a claim of "bad governance", without explaining how bad governance leads to an actual problem, for expample something like inefficent signature validation, nodes crashing etc. Then someone like Atack could come forward with proposals and ideas on how to fix the specific problems that result from the bad governance, rather than the bad governance itself. That is what I would like to see from Atack anyway.
4) I find, and I've always found, the whole CSAM "emergency" completely crazy, the whole idea of using consensus changes to either fight specific kinds of spam or to enforce cultural/governance shifts incredibly reckless, the whole "we have 15% of nodes so we have full consensus" circus totally insane, the whole "doing something sloppy is always better than doing nothing" pseudo-philosophy dangerously retarded. In this, me and you mostly agree.
Totally agree
English
