I personally been running knots (primarily virtue signaling considering I didn’t do full due diligence) the last few months and just have been an observer of all of the back n forth on X from when it began. Listened in on numerous spaces, read countless heated threads and back n forth between different influencers. However, I just recently really dove into the technical details to properly educate myself and understand both sides. I watched the Chris Guida and Super Testnet debate hosted by foresthodl and that was really eye opening for me as well as Lopp’s analysis on BIP110 and separately the history of Luke. Stephen Livera also released a very very good GitHub link that extensively explains the history of spam, core, inscriptions, op return, filtering etc. Now I’m reading this and it definitely confirms my growing belief that the knots/bip 110 leaders and main proponents definitely were and are WELL intentioned but DEFINITELY moved too fast resulting in many technical errors and general governance and consensus inadequacies. And tbh noticing the increase in a lot more offensive language and insults used by many bip110 proponents was very telling.
I strongly agree with your point here that I think people are well intentioned and I have a huge amount of respect for those folks.
I also love the idea of having multiple node implementations out there.
I tried to avoid putting too much of my own thoughts around the debate into the piece (although there is obviously some bias there) and I’ve been pretty deep into learning and being exposed to both sides of the debate.
Literally listening to a Mechanic interview while I type this.
It’s easy to “see myself” in this data (as you always put it) and also to imagine the dynamics of the unfolding debate. Illuminating work, as always. Thanks for what you’re doing.
We’re hardly in the last chapter of Bitcoin and I could see this sentiment work becoming something like what on-chain analysis is now. But, with applicability outside our little bubble, too.
Also your last section is hilarious. I’m reminded of one of Eminem’s freestyles in 8 Mile where he steals all the other guy’s content before he can rap it.
Thanks so much, I was hugely inspired by all the the brilliant onchain work that exists out there and basically applying that methodology to human emotions.
There’s for sure opportunity to do this across broader environments, but there as some very unique aspects about Bitcoin that make this community so perfect for it.
For starters, it’s such an unflinching protocol.
Because of that the human psychology dynamics are more amplified.
This was really awesome bro, thank you. I’ve been a bit vocal on BIP 110 recently, although I try to stay measured. The debate has certainly gotten nastier, but maybe that’s just my algo. Keep up the great work!
This is a very high quality piece.
I personally been running knots (primarily virtue signaling considering I didn’t do full due diligence) the last few months and just have been an observer of all of the back n forth on X from when it began. Listened in on numerous spaces, read countless heated threads and back n forth between different influencers. However, I just recently really dove into the technical details to properly educate myself and understand both sides. I watched the Chris Guida and Super Testnet debate hosted by foresthodl and that was really eye opening for me as well as Lopp’s analysis on BIP110 and separately the history of Luke. Stephen Livera also released a very very good GitHub link that extensively explains the history of spam, core, inscriptions, op return, filtering etc. Now I’m reading this and it definitely confirms my growing belief that the knots/bip 110 leaders and main proponents definitely were and are WELL intentioned but DEFINITELY moved too fast resulting in many technical errors and general governance and consensus inadequacies. And tbh noticing the increase in a lot more offensive language and insults used by many bip110 proponents was very telling.
All in all great piece nonetheless
I strongly agree with your point here that I think people are well intentioned and I have a huge amount of respect for those folks.
I also love the idea of having multiple node implementations out there.
I tried to avoid putting too much of my own thoughts around the debate into the piece (although there is obviously some bias there) and I’ve been pretty deep into learning and being exposed to both sides of the debate.
Literally listening to a Mechanic interview while I type this.
It’s easy to “see myself” in this data (as you always put it) and also to imagine the dynamics of the unfolding debate. Illuminating work, as always. Thanks for what you’re doing.
We’re hardly in the last chapter of Bitcoin and I could see this sentiment work becoming something like what on-chain analysis is now. But, with applicability outside our little bubble, too.
Also your last section is hilarious. I’m reminded of one of Eminem’s freestyles in 8 Mile where he steals all the other guy’s content before he can rap it.
Thanks so much, I was hugely inspired by all the the brilliant onchain work that exists out there and basically applying that methodology to human emotions.
There’s for sure opportunity to do this across broader environments, but there as some very unique aspects about Bitcoin that make this community so perfect for it.
For starters, it’s such an unflinching protocol.
Because of that the human psychology dynamics are more amplified.
P.S. I literally just send a message to someone else that read it and mentioned the ending section that “I channelled my inner Eminem from 8 mile” 🤣
Nice work here.
Thanks so much, Frank. Truly appreciate it and I hope I gave it pretty even coverage 🤝
Yes, you did a good job, and it was sincere. A good piece to help both sides reflect on the situation a bit.
Glad if I could be of service in some small way, feels good to finally have this out there for everyone.
This was really awesome bro, thank you. I’ve been a bit vocal on BIP 110 recently, although I try to stay measured. The debate has certainly gotten nastier, but maybe that’s just my algo. Keep up the great work!
I can pretty accurately state (backed by a mountain of language data) that it's not just your algo and it has gotten nastier on both sides.
It's such a divisive topic that I wanted to at least present it in a calm and collected way.
Gotta be part of the change we want to see in the world, right?