Listened to a good deal of saylor (npub15dq…lm5m)’s latest podcast with Peter McCormack. He wants to ossify the protocol for the most part because he thinks it’s already successful, and that the risk from tinkering outweighs the upside.
That’s fair, but there’s one point (maybe I missed it) that he seems to elide over, and that’s that the devs can’t do anything on their own if the nodes don’t go along with it, correct?
So he seems to position the devs as centralized tinkerers, messing with the free market, but the devs are more like people making new inventions, products, services, possibilities, and the market is the nodes who can adopt or reject them.
So Saylor, it seems, is arguing for cutting off the inventors because of the problems they might create, but that battle should be fought at the node level IMO, persuade people these inventions are harmful or pointless, and see what happens. Or fund other inventions that are better.
But cutting off the innovation at the root because of the possibility that people might adopt bad ones seems out of step with the spirit of the protocol.
I love Saylor, guy has huge balls, but he seemed to be bullshitting, reaching a bit with some of the analogies he was making.
Again, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding either what he was saying or how the protocol works, but that was my impression.
Chris Liss /
npub1dtf…hgu0
2024-05-27 09:34:58
Author Public Key
npub1dtf79g6grzc48jqlfrzc7389rx08kn7gm03hsy9qqrww8jgtwaqq64hgu0Published at
2024-05-27 09:34:58Event JSON
{
"id": "a1f6c3379e86658cc4edbb8667aaae9af515f23e53dd4479bbd53b2bb6f4a89a",
"pubkey": "6ad3e2a34818b153c81f48c58f44e5199e7b4fc8dbe37810a000dce3c90b7740",
"created_at": 1716795298,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"a341f45ff9758f570a21b000c17d4e53a3a497c8397f26c0e6d61e5acffc7a98"
],
[
"client",
"Nostur",
"31990:9be0be0fc079548233231614e4e1efc9f28b0db398011efeecf05fe570e5dd33:1685868693432"
]
],
"content": "Listened to a good deal of nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m’s latest podcast with Peter McCormack. He wants to ossify the protocol for the most part because he thinks it’s already successful, and that the risk from tinkering outweighs the upside. \n\nThat’s fair, but there’s one point (maybe I missed it) that he seems to elide over, and that’s that the devs can’t do anything on their own if the nodes don’t go along with it, correct?\n\nSo he seems to position the devs as centralized tinkerers, messing with the free market, but the devs are more like people making new inventions, products, services, possibilities, and the market is the nodes who can adopt or reject them. \n\nSo Saylor, it seems, is arguing for cutting off the inventors because of the problems they might create, but that battle should be fought at the node level IMO, persuade people these inventions are harmful or pointless, and see what happens. Or fund other inventions that are better. \n\nBut cutting off the innovation at the root because of the possibility that people might adopt bad ones seems out of step with the spirit of the protocol. \n\nI love Saylor, guy has huge balls, but he seemed to be bullshitting, reaching a bit with some of the analogies he was making. \n\nAgain, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding either what he was saying or how the protocol works, but that was my impression. \n\n",
"sig": "4ccf6f3e111064e6bb42db1e704deac83040918071007341a743453250bf4816511e9d3a3d26ac66f9310fd9305247952fc3f194df4bdd2ef8080f5cbfaf84f4"
}