The one thing that's a bit disappointing, but understandable as human nature, is Bitcoin Core's drama.

When I think about massively adopted open source projects (Linux, Apache, ect) there's a lot of stories to recall that are full of drama, but in the end the important projects continue to evolve. The software is updated, maintainers rotate in, and features demanded by users are developed and released. Projects that fail to do this die and are replaced by better teams and better software that continue to see adoption. A great example is OpenSSL when a critical vulnerability forced engineers from all over the world to make a concerted effort to resolve the issues and facilitate better governance going forward.

There's always a feature or two that cause a debate over the purpose and scope of a project, but if a feature is truly needed it's developed and when it's developed outside the core project the developers are supportive and collaborative in the work and one project promotes the other within the community.

Considering all of this, when I read on the history of Bitcoin Core, the culture feels toxic. When you tell people that the goal is to create a state-less money and then insult individuals who try to enable this use-case by improving TPS while maintaining fundamental innovations (non-custodial ownership) you can expect them to leave and create their own implementation. When adoption continues on alternative chains and additional innovations discovered (smart contracts) that further the goals of BTC (global p2p economy without middlemen) you'd expect bitcoiners to celebrate and work to implement something similar, but this hasn't been the case. Instead, we see the community double down on their toxic rhetoric.

I fear we're seeing poor human nature rear it's head and guide BTC, enabling continued religious zeal around a rhetoric that prevents continued innovation and change. This nature is fed by fiat gains in the original project which is novel among open source projects. When your original release isn't continuing to pay dividends it's a lot easier to keep an open mind about innovation and progress.

The development and adoption of Lightning Network reminds me more of critical proprietary software that's seen mass adoption, but fails to receive continued support. The community or corporation that picks up the ball is forced to bolt on an overly complex solution in order to remain relevant in a space where the user's expectation has evolved.

Just a thought.