Mischa on Nostr: I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a ...

I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a valid concern. Maybe there is a better and more conservative way to set the limits. But no one is proposing real alternative solutions, and the problem still exists: It cannot be the plan that we have full blocks forever. The limit should be there for periods of high demand, not so that blocks are permanently full.

If Core really wants to solve this problem, they should propose other solutions. Just saying that the problem cannot be solved is not enough.

What makes me skeptical is that at the same time, companies, or funding partners connected to Core are working on smart contracts and other use cases around Bitcoin. That creates a conflict of interest.

They tell the public that Bitcoin is money, but at the same time they are building business models on top of Bitcoin to make money themselves.

The public is being told one story, while the incentives behind the scenes are different. Decisions are not only being made for Bitcoin as money, but also for business opportunities and profit.

quoting
nevent1q…zjjm

In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he was involved with Epstein, and now I’m hearing more and more about Blockstream actively working on smart contracts on sidechains, with long-term plans to potentially expand this technology to Bitcoin Onchain.

This makes me question his motivations. I no longer trust that his opinions are purely based on what is best for Bitcoin. It increasingly seems that his views may be influenced by business interests, pushing additional use cases on Bitcoin through Blockstream and promoting his treasury company, even if those use cases may not actually benefit Bitcoin as money.