pull down to refresh
144 sats \ 7 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12h \ on: DISCUSS: "If you ever made a sat from spam, you are a bad actor" bitcoin
Nack
What matters is where you stand now not what you've done in the past
Imo if you're still spamming NFTs, then I don't really trust your opinion on bitcoin
That’s what first bothered me too. Even if the broader point is correct, the tenses are definitely wrong.
reply
I'm not convinced the broader point is correct.
The first principle of bitcoin, in my mind, is permissionlessness.
I'm more inclined to see statements like Knut's as "not understanding the ethical principles the whole system is built on" than somebody making a valid transaction.
reply
I think that strikes at the heart of the debate. One could support permissionlessness for monetary transactions but want to censor non financial transactions. I'm not sure I agree with that since there's a slippery slope of censorship, but I do think it is a reasonable position to take
reply
I understand it a little differently.
Bitcoin is a system the rules of which you agree to when you accept bitcoin in trade. If you send me some bitcoin, I verify it with my node and by accepting it, I say, these coins follow the rules I call bitcoin.
Every valid transaction follows those rules.
To claim that someone -- who follows the rules that we all by virtue of accepting the coins agreed to -- is not using bitcoin right is absurd. What was the point of having rules in the first place?
Apparently, people like Knut think there was some other set of rules that we should all be following. Who decided those rules?
The process of deciding the rules we all agree on was the thing that Satoshi solved. There cannot be any consensus rules that are not consensus rules.
reply
The rules are not disconnected from purpose. Satoshi designed these rules for a purpose which was to create p2p digital money.
If the rules are no longer serving the purpose well, I think it's a legitimate position to say we should change the rules.
And I don't know Knut's position, but I'm not even sure he's saying the rules should change, just that he doesn't value the opinions of a certain group
In any case, I don't agree with his original statement at all but I understand where it comes from
reply
Neither have I spoken with Knut, so perhaps I am mischaracterizing his position.
If the rules are no longer serving the purpose well, I think it's a legitimate position to say we should change the rules.
I agree with this completely. The problem is that the filter debate has not proposed changing the rules, rather the "policies" which are not rules.
My point was that we all agree to certain rules when we start using bitcoin and it's nonsensical to say that "well actually, some of those rules that I previously agreed to are evil and bad."
Different rules = different coin. If people want others to use a different coin, convince them to follow your rules. Don't try to claim that the coin we have been using actually had different rules all along.
reply
I’m also not convinced by the broader point
reply