No, it's not dishonest. It's stupid. He is saying a ship sails better with no captain, just randomly floating with the tides, winds and currents and whatever the sailors feel like doing at any given time. He dismisses the concerns of the passengers, who don't just want to avoid icebergs and pirates, but actually have specific places to go.
Many of us are now just looking for a good opportunity to get off this floating madhouse.
i had come to the conclusion before that blocksize limit had to be raised fast and frequently. i did not understand for fuck sake, why core didn´t act. then came the blockstream narrative. those guys are on payrolls, they want to make a buck with new layers, crippling the original layer. ok, maybe. (i always thought new possible layers were welcomed and cheered by everyone). this interview made it easier for me to understand why core is so inert, almost academic.
and now you are saying that this is stupid. do i understand you right that the way bitcoin was maintained in the last 3 years was/is stupid, because there is no captain? you want another way of "governing" bitcoin. that is legitimate. as far as i understood it, there is none. do you believe the classic team will write safer code?
(edit)
Classic code gets tested on testnet the same as Core code. There is no way of knowing how vulnerable ANY code is to hazards that are not uncovered by testing. Of course there are risks, but there are risks to doing nothing also. I am not a programmer or a cryptographer. I am a student of economic theory. It is there where my concerns lay. Bitcoin may or may not have the safest or more accurately least unsafe blockchain, but it does unquestionably have the oldest and longest chain. That's it's value and firstmover advantage. The size of the blockchain is Bitcoin's greatest asset and smallblockers and Core are treating it as a liability. That indicates they don't even understand the very thing they are trying to safeguard.
We shouldn't care just what the cost to nodes are of a larger chain. We should care about the RELATIVE cost is considering the value of the network they are securing. Likewise we shouldn't care if miners are getting compensated enough bitcoin to secure the network. We should care if they are given enough value in fiat terms to secure the network. It's meaningless to argue over fees vs. subsidy without also taking exchange price into account.
Leading libertarians and anarchocapitalists is like herding cats and Core developers are no different. I know it would be difficult for anybody to do, but it must be done or Bitcoin will either die or fade into obscurity. There are few barriers to entry into this market and competitors are coming on fast. I'm not saying Code development needs rulers. It needs leaders that can forge consensus, and Mow is completely wrong when he says we have one. What we have is a roadmap that some are are reluctantly for, some are against, and some say they are for while they secretly are working to undermine it. What's worse is that even if the roadmap gets implemented, it may be too little too late.
Classic is not looking to permanently replace Core. Classic supporters like me want greater on-chain scalability and we don't much care how we get it. So if Classic motivates Core to act, then it's a success. If it becomes the most commonly used client, then we know that will only be the case for as long as it enjoys sufficient support. Governance that is never threatened is unaccountable. That's the hard truth that smallblockers can't seem to accept. Accountability and stability are inversely proportional. It's a trade-off, so pick your poison.
