pull down to refresh

Early in this year, @k00b posted about the utility of bikeshedding (#976885). At the moment, it didn't really sink in, but I've come back to the post a few times since then.
Maybe it's something lots of people knew (that endlessly squabbling about a little thing like filters could help build the consensus around soft forks that don't have much at all to do with filters), but I was strongly reminded of it today when seeing these two posts on X.
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 17h
That's deep and on some level it's correct, yet I'd argue the very thing I'm doing here is picking a fight with bikeshedding
reply
A "wild" softfork activated outside of core would be a new reality, especially since the 17% Luke mentions is nodes, not miners, so it would need to be an UASF.
Interesting times.
reply
tbf I think Luke has always supported covenants. It's seemingly inconsistent with his stance on non-monetary transactions, considering that CTV opens up more non-monetary applications, but it's also a sure sign he isn't fully captured by the ideology he created.
reply
yes, I think I had seen statements to that effect in the past, but it's interesting to see nopara following the same thought pattern you were describing in May.
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b fwd 22 Aug
@nopara73 once lurked here. Maybe they still do. Although I'm not sure which is more self-flattering: believing I first had a thought that others will have or my thoughts have influenced someone else's thinking.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 17h
I still lurk here alright :)
reply
reply