Analogue Dog on Nostr: Ten31 invests in AnchorWatch which relies on miniscript. #BIP110 limits miniscript. ...
Ten31 invests in AnchorWatch which relies on miniscript. #BIP110 limits miniscript.
Matt Odell's position contains an inconsistency:
1. He opposes BIP-110 — a soft fork that would limit arbitrary data at consensus level
2. He doesn't oppose Core v30 — which enables the very data growth BIP-110 seeks to limit
3. He's against Knots — the client maintaining stricter defaults
This reveals something important: his opposition isn't about the outcome (data bloat), it's about the mechanism. He appears more comfortable with:
· Gradual, default-driven change (Core v30's policy shift)
· Than explicit, consensus-level limitation (BIP-110's soft fork)
Data bloat through accumulated OP_RETURN transactions achieves similar centralization pressure over time.
The network is already demonstrating what decentralization looks like:
· Core's share dropped from 88% to 78%
· Knots grew to over 21%
· Users are voting with their machines
This is decentralization in action. Different clients, different philosophies, all operating on the same chain. Matt's apparent preference for a single client contradicts this organic diversification.
Is decentralization having multiple clients with different policies?
· Or is it maintaining a single dominant client with permissive defaults?
Matt's position suggests the latter—which, doesn't fully embrace what decentralization actually means.
nevent1q…dass
