I agree with you, but the proposed solution doesn't do that ...

Matt - Not Your Entropy, Not Your Coins

npub1l6scds4yv7xmcsmhqnhdy9sggm520q09lvts2m5mkvecgr2mmmeqsuj5rc

hex

688ae2b9af328fe32cd3dc0252da1fb47e7ebeb25b480f68ba66ce3aa81378fb

nevent

nevent1qqsx3zhzhxhn9rlr9nfacqjjmg0mgln7h6e9kjq0dzaxdn364qfh37cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgs0agvxc2jx0rdugdmsfmkjzcyyd698s8jlk9c9d6dmxvuyp4daaus3s4k8y

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-08-10T23:26:04Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

4e847072c3714dc6a4681023db40120600c920bdd6b56b68087d4f7798f5fedc...

I agree with you, but the proposed solution doesn't do that and just tripled down on the sort of thing it allegedly stood against (trying to force changes).

It was an odd strategy. I initially agreed with the premise of optionality. Cool. Run a different implementation. Hell, let's have more. But then the whole thing turned into a shit show so I sort of tuned it out mostly. And now here we are. Little changed and good will has been burned. For nothing really. All for what? To avoid changing a config setting to a custom value?

It all seems dumb to me even as someone who agrees with most of the concerns.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "688ae2b9af328fe32cd3dc0252da1fb47e7ebeb25b480f68ba66ce3aa81378fb",
  "pubkey": "fea186c2a4678dbc437704eed2160846e8a781e5fb17056e9bb333840d5bdef2",
  "created_at": 1786404364,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "bb8209d4963701bfb472ef5f50cb1bf701c8cad4ce12e1981f28fb7dc8a6d314",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "fea186c2a4678dbc437704eed2160846e8a781e5fb17056e9bb333840d5bdef2",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "0689df5847a8d3376892da29622d7c0fdc1ef1958f4bc4471d90966aa1eca9f2",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "0000016a1e7bb30e6f2bb519f1de4eb029f9e18e3e7cf2c0b757d6d02a4f4fdb",
      "",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "4e847072c3714dc6a4681023db40120600c920bdd6b56b68087d4f7798f5fedc",
      "",
      "reply"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I agree with you, but the proposed solution doesn't do that and just tripled down on the sort of thing it allegedly stood against (trying to force changes).\n\nIt was an odd strategy. I initially agreed with the premise of optionality. Cool. Run a different implementation. Hell, let's have more. But then the whole thing turned into a shit show so I sort of tuned it out mostly. And now here we are. Little changed and good will has been burned. For nothing really. All for what? To avoid changing a config setting to a custom value?\n\nIt all seems dumb to me even as someone who agrees with most of the concerns.",
  "sig": "bedc40ce6be3ad2568169b68290b513cb64d814396ccbf819a370597a210c3f5d435baa2ac6a26393a46791c5eed5e28a7e7a415553d5bb554aa5f2733076bd3"
}