Cool, then address the criticisms. You keep posting and polling but not engaging.

Sorry my comment was ambiguous. I know there wasn't any funny business! I just wanted to give those comments visibility.

Sorry about this. There were a few corrections that I wanted to make and the editing window had passed. I wasn't trying to avoid anything.

jimmysong

 (to make corrections) that had a few comments:

There are a bunch of fresh contributors coming in to Bitcoin Core that have nothing to do with chaincode. Chaincode also hasn't run a residency in a few years. Their recent programs have been fully remote and I know a few people with families who have done it. The majority of contributors don't live in those listed cities and don't work out of these offices.

I am confused by the goals you would like to achieve. You say that you don't want drama and be apolitical, but you also want to take principled positions, such as rejecting bip110. That seems in conflict to each other, and I don't really feel that is different to what Bitcoin Core is trying to achieve.

By what mechanism will donors be able to express themselves?

For those that would rather watch something: 

Again, it is just another fork of Core with some different/extra knobs and some additional/different ideological baggage. What's the point? There is already a Core fork with more knobs and a religionist maintainer, why in the absolute fuck would we need or want another one‽

bitcoin

The Third Way: a Case for a Third Implementation

[An earlier post was deleted](https://stacker.news/items/1470694) (to make corrections) that had a few comments:

From @sedited:

> There are a bunch of fresh contributors coming in to Bitcoin Core that have nothing to do with chaincode. Chaincode also hasn't run a residency in a few years. Their recent programs have been fully remote and I know a few people with families who have done it. The majority of contributors don't live in those listed cities and don't work out of these offices.

> I am confused by the goals you would like to achieve. You say that you don't want drama and be apolitical, but you also want to take principled positions, such as rejecting bip110. That seems in conflict to each other, and I don't really feel that is different to what Bitcoin Core is trying to achieve.

> By what mechanism will donors be able to express themselves?

From [@denlillaapan](https://stacker.news/denlillaapan)

> > We want to be the implementation that rejects 100KB OP\_RETURNs and BIP110 which lack consensus. Both of those are filled with drama. We want none of that.
>
> that's very welcome, thank you. *That* infighting was a complete dead end

From @jimmysong

> For those that would rather watch something: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i\_cTPCkZi00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_cTPCkZi00)

From @DarrelXero

> Again, it is just another fork of Core with some different/extra knobs and some additional/different ideological baggage. What's the point? There is already a Core fork with more knobs and a religionist maintainer, why in the absolute fuck would we need or want another one‽