I think we all start with custodial buying bitcoin IOUs so I don't think that's a big issue. It is how you get them from step 1 to traveling down the rabbit hole.

I think tipping is great to get people experiencing owning bitcoin and even if only 5% of people who get tipped sats ever take one step into the rabbit hole it's still a net benefit.

I think WoS is good, it's easy to use.

I would like to see someone put together a tutorial for folks "So you got some bitcoin-what now" that takes them all the way from a to z. Maybe it is merely a curation of all the current available resources since there is so much amazing stuff out there.

Maybe we should SN hive mind this resource into existence.

It's not easy to find that situation, I guess. I have also had my share of boring, meaningless jobs that I couldn't wait to quit.
I bet @k00b enjoys working on SN the vast majority of the time.

Overly dramatic.

Decentralization isn't gone. This feature just shifts economic benefit from the miner to the transaction creator. Miners who do this are automatically sacrificing rewards they could have otherwise earned by including a higher paying transaction.

They can't sustainably do this, without the transaction creators paying them in some other way.

The idea has also been around for probably 7 or 8 years. Notice that it hasn't caught on, nor scaled.

The problem-behind-the-problem here is: is it possible to have the consensus defined as a written spec. This point is surprisingly controversial because, compare with e.g. internet protocols like TLS: they have a written spec to which all clients adhere. Even there, it's not cut and dried, there are lots of minor details and extensions where there at least could be a server-client mismatch and connections get dropped. But here's the difference: bitcoin's consensus requires byte-for-byte and bug-for-bug 100% compatibility between every peer, it is not a question of pairs of nodes agreeing temporarily, it is a question of every node everywhere and always agreeing. It's possible that neither written specs, no matter how thorough, nor well written code, can meet that standard (a perfect practical example is the 2013 chain split, which was not caused by any of the C++ consensus code per se, but by an unforeseen behaviour in the database software used. Not intentional but unintentional consensus dependency).

ETH from the beginning chose to base things on a written spec, and to my mind this was not wrong, but I am pessimistic that it actually changed anything. If there is an actual open-to-interpretation thing that happens, you're kind of better off having one overwhelmingly used client, as it's a de facto tiebreaker on the debatable thing. The counterargument is, if the overwhelming client has a consensus break that's clearly just an error/bug, then it's nice if there's another client everyone can switch over to as an emergency.