pull down to refresh
Wouldn't most people just be better off...
Running Bitcoin core on 'standard settings', connecting a wallet to it and actually spending and using their Bitcoin?
Some people are better 'configuring' but honestly 99% of people are not. That's why I don't see the point of different "implementations". One good "implementation" and let fees and economic incentives define what Bitcoin is
Generally, yes, on a risk adjustment basis. As I've said before, anything beyond that is additional surface risk.
Software that uses Bitcoin underneath is additional surface in which to lose it. Seed phrase handling has lost more Bitcoin than just about anything, seed phrases are not part of Core.
But reality is, added surface exists to meet usability demands. Few are inclined to use Core on a secure desktop, it'd be a nightmare if people thought they could install it on their daily driver.
That's why I don't see the point of different "implementations". One good "implementation"
That's a completely separate issue.
A single source of distribution itself becomes a honeypot of risk. People that download Bitcoin Core do so without thinking about it, that lack of discernment is more dangerous than discerning wrong. This is how Core became a political body, it has political power over people who just blindly download Core due to its legacy.
The only way to save Core is to archive it, and force adherents to move to a new repo, only if they deserve will people will follow. If they do, their reign becomes undisputed. Until then they're showing they fear being found undeserving of Core's legacy.
I'm more in the distribution camp than the implementation camp, a minimal consensus kernel that many Bitcoin distributions build around would decentralize where people download from while the narrower scope diffuses politics of the central library. Those respective distributions also create a fork standoff because its no longer a distribution monoculture.
The existence of multiple choices requires discernment, we don't have that now because there is a "safe" default.
That's fair and I agree.
We ought to expect it, but that doesn't mean we should sit quietly and watch it unfold.
The transparency expectation in open source is such that when we can see that much anticipated human weakness we can call it out to course correct. Open source is pointless without vocal observers.
That's the silver lining in Core losing some credibility, gets us closer to distributions perhaps. #1323746