Bitcoin’s Monolithic Core: Why the Cathedral Has No Jesters (and Maybe Needs One)

by

In the gray city where coins clink not in pockets but in ledgers made of light, a man named Jameson Lopp, an early worshiper at the altar of Bitcoin and something of a prophet in hooded sweatshirts, lets out a sigh as cold as Moscow winter. “96% of these magic machines,” he proclaims, “are running the same blasted sermon: Bitcoin Core.”

The One-eyed King of the Bitcoin Ghettos 👑

Lopp, half philosopher and half Cassandra, fumes on the town square known as X, May 2, 2025. “The freedom of node operators is to choose which flavor of boiled potato they eat,” he mutters, “but 96% prefer the one with no butter. Surely, we deserve vodka with the meal at least?” He admits the choice of node is up to those who wish to risk their sanity, otherwise known as validators.

they tend to be unmaintained or only maintained by 1 dev with no peer review.

From…

— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) May 2, 2025

two programs that work, one of which is maintained by a man who talks to no one, and eight other wonders of neglected code.”

Still, there are rebels: Floresta, a lightweight node crafted in Rust (perhaps for rougher men), and btcd, concocted in Golang by dreamers with too much time and too little sense. Together they cling to the cliff of relevance, waiting for someone to notice.

But numbers don’t lie (they only drink, like everyone else): 96.99% of Bitcoin nodes recite the Bitcoin Core catechism, 2.72% shout with Knots, and a scant 0.29% wander with btc(d) suite. As for the true exotics? They are as rare as laughter in court—a mighty 0.04%.

Why bother with this struggle? Why run these machines at all? The nodes keep the priesthood honest, the money flowing, the shadows in check. Each program is a stubborn donkey on the grand caravan, carrying the weight of the blockchain, and hoping it doesn’t trip over its own tail.

Bitcoin Devs: The Venerable Sloths 🦥 and ‘Oh, Return!’ Wars

The priesthood—guardians of Bitcoin Core—have been called too timid, too inert, like noblemen who glare at progress from behind twelve locks. U.Today reports the return of 2014’s infamous “OP_RETURN” arguments, pitting innovation against tradition like two grandmothers fighting over the last potato.

The enigmatic Peter Todd, a Satoshi candidate with a glint in his eye, has tossed a firecracker: Lift the OP_RETURN data cap! Loosen the chain! Unleash chaos—for the sake of L2! Some cheer. Others throw rotten fruit. Should Bitcoin become a circus like the altcoins? Should the L2 siphon users like a tax collector with a grudge?

The purest of purists declaim from icy towers: “Tinker with the protocol and you are no better than a peasant minting his own rubles!” They would rather freeze in the purity of tradition than bask in the warmth of innovation. And so, the chain loops around itself, ancient, unyielding, stubborn as an old dog refusing new tricks.

And somewhere, Jameson Lopp sips his tea, eyeing exotic clients and wondering if, perhaps, one in a hundred would survive the Siberian night. 🍵🐻

Read More

2025-05-03 15:22