ndeet -- 31d Yours is a truly weird take, if you want to have a conservative client you obviosly want to start from the most mature and battle tested codebase, You don't want to start from scratch, try to copy consensus (including bugs) and risk a chain split. How is this not obvious? Starting from Core before v30 is the most sensible approach. Even backporting useful features and consensus changes that align with the goal should be considered. You just leave out the crap that supports spammers and shitcoiners and does not add to monetary properties. Why do you discredit it from the start? Why don't you help raising funds? How do you know there is no funding and devs? A conservative approach sounds very appealing to plebs and big bitcoin holders. They are not interested in dickbutts, evm and other shitcoinery and pet projects freeriding on Bitcoin. replyYours is a truly weird take, if you want to have a conservative client you obviosly want to start from the most mature and battle tested codebase, You don't want to start from scratch, try to copy consensus (including bugs) and risk a chain split. How is this not obvious? Starting from Core before v30 is the most sensible approach. Even backporting useful features and consensus changes that align with the goal should be considered. You just leave out the crap that supports spammers and shitcoiners and does not add to monetary properties. Why do you discredit it from the start? Why don't you help raising funds? How do you know there is no funding and devs? A conservative approach sounds very appealing to plebs and big bitcoin holders. They are not interested in dickbutts, evm and other shitcoinery and pet projects freeriding on Bitcoin.
thread · root 0000626e…1fa3 · depth 3 · · selected 0000e3eb…5b2b
thread
root 0000626e…1fa3 · depth 3 · · selected 0000e3eb…5b2b
Imagine being hostile against another well funded implementation ensuring there is no single point of failureand further reducing the attack surface by decentralising development.Unless you have already influence in the current reference implementation and want to make sure your (shitcoin)agenda gets pushed through.Same people that praised LibreRelay and told you nobody can stop them now being hostile against anotherimplementation going the opposite way to not break and rush things and ensure Bitcoin will survive 1000+ years.nostr:nevent1qqs9qre95j0602smeu4nvzlxuuce4fg39hhyknk364xgppju8wwuyzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqzyrmj3k0xuuzgxk88pyc0tjnykzthwrvcnnxcdp20ucvwm2wg5wqsvp38t3h
Weird take. As far as we're aware, it's neither well funded nor has any developers or code.My main point all along is that if you truly want to be independent of Core, it's best not to be a downstreamfork of Core.Ask me how I know.
Yours is a truly weird take, if you want to have a conservative client you obviosly want to start from the mostmature and battle tested codebase, You don't want to start from scratch, try to copy consensus (including bugs)and risk a chain split. How is this not obvious?Starting from Core before v30 is the most sensible approach. Even backporting useful features and consensuschanges that align with the goal should be considered. You just leave out the crap that supports spammers andshitcoiners and does not add to monetary properties.Why do you discredit it from the start? Why don't you help raising funds? How do you know there is no fundingand devs? A conservative approach sounds very appealing to plebs and big bitcoin holders. They are notinterested in dickbutts, evm and other shitcoinery and pet projects freeriding on Bitcoin.
Weird take. As far as we're aware, it's neither well funded nor has any developers or code.
My main point all along is that if you truly want to be independent of Core, it's best not to be a downstream fork of Core.
Ask me how I know.