Good question. I definitely think the dollar is one of the last ones standing. If the BRICS currency has convertibility, it has a chance at displacing the dollar at least in some places.
There is something very fishy going on in Bitcoin Core indeed. I have another "anecdote" involving Anthony Towns and several other developers and maintainers:
In v26.0 Marco Falke saw fit to redefine the description of the datacarriersize config option from:
"Maximum size of data in data carrier transactions we relay and mine"
to
"Relay and mine transactions whose data-carrying raw scriptPubKey is of this size or less".
This was around the same time @lukedashjr was proposing to extend the applicability of datacarrier to also catch inscriptions. Then Gloria Zhao and Ava Chow (Bitcoin Core maintainers with commit access) used that new meaning of datacarriersize as an argument to reject the fix (for non autists: inscriptions store they data in the input section of transactions, while "scriptPubKey" means output, so they narrowed the applicability of datacarriersize in its description text).
This is particularly infuriating since Luke is also the developer who originally contributed the datacarrier and datacarriersize config options to Bitcoin Core back in 2014. They redefined the meaning of his contribution in his face to be able to reject his new work more comfortably.
Here's some Twitter receipts of Ava Chow arguing that the "inscription bug" is fixed due to the "amended" meaning of datacarriersize:
Good question. I definitely think the dollar is one of the last ones standing. If the BRICS currency has convertibility, it has a chance at displacing the dollar at least in some places.
There is something very fishy going on in Bitcoin Core indeed. I have another "anecdote" involving Anthony Towns and several other developers and maintainers:
In v26.0 Marco Falke saw fit to redefine the description of the
datacarriersizeconfig option from:"Maximum size of data in data carrier transactions we relay and mine"
to
"Relay and mine transactions whose data-carrying raw scriptPubKey is of this size or less".
AJ Towns and Gibbs ACKed the redefinition: https://twitter.com/oomahq/status/1742679458530672642
This was around the same time @lukedashjr was proposing to extend the applicability of
datacarrierto also catch inscriptions. Then Gloria Zhao and Ava Chow (Bitcoin Core maintainers with commit access) used that new meaning ofdatacarriersizeas an argument to reject the fix (for non autists: inscriptions store they data in the input section of transactions, while "scriptPubKey" means output, so they narrowed the applicability ofdatacarriersizein its description text).Luke's PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408
This is particularly infuriating since Luke is also the developer who originally contributed the
datacarrieranddatacarriersizeconfig options to Bitcoin Core back in 2014. They redefined the meaning of his contribution in his face to be able to reject his new work more comfortably.Here's some Twitter receipts of Ava Chow arguing that the "inscription bug" is fixed due to the "amended" meaning of
datacarriersize:https://m.stacker.news/17775
https://m.stacker.news/17776
Apparently we already have 1M 👀
I was here before that (?).
https://i.imgur.com/okyjEcs.png