pull down to refresh
111 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 14h
So over this. Parker says "all the people that disagree" are being dismissed. Even if they were the majority, which I'd wager they aren't, it doesn't matter. If you're asking them to please both the minority and the majority simultaneously else they're cruel, you are being unreasonable. If you're asking them to not act if there's anyone dissenting, you are being unreasonable. If you think you know what core should be doing technically, but don't actually understand the technical problem, you are being unreasonable.
If you have a problem with the governance of core, propose an alternative governance structure and spend your life working on it or funding it or supporting it however you can like all the people that do for core. Work or fund or influence more developers to work on knots, or the consensus library, or whatever.
Also, I get it. It sucks to be out of your depth and things to be out of your control, especially when most of your wealth/power/purpose/whatever came from this thing. But you were never in control of it. But neither is core. We all want to believe it can be controlled to make us feel safe, so we lash out at the people we believe control it because it makes this belief feel true.
reply
111 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 13h
They can always resign. They've put themselves in a political/priestly position, so it's normal that they attract criticism.
Good point. It looks like politics attract the worst kind of people and political problems don't have a solution. But I still think that it's good that people are trying to bring awareness to the problem (most people don't even know). The more people think by themselves, the less damage politics/politicians/priests can do.
reply