[Pre-BIP Discussion] Bitcoin Node Repository Consensus-Policy Separation

The ongoing situation within the Bitcoin development community has raised significant concerns regarding governance and the influence of core developers. The focal point of the debate centers around the bitcoin/bitcoin repository and its perceived monopolization by a single authority, leading to escalated tensions and the consideration of a fork over default settings. This discord among developers, some of whom share personal connections outside of their professional roles, highlights the challenges in maintaining objectivity and balance in open-source projects. The discussion points towards a deep-seated issue with how defaults are set and the power they wield within the ecosystem.

A proposal has been made to address these concerns through structural changes to the repository's organization and naming conventions. Specifically, the suggestion includes maintaining the current state of the bitcoin/bitcoin repository under a new name, bitcoin/bitcoin-node, while repurposing the original repository name to bitcoin/bitcoin-core. This would facilitate a strategic shift towards integrating libbitcoinkernel in the future, emphasizing a more consensus-driven approach to development. Additionally, there is an option to revert certain changes that have been identified as problematic, specifically referenced by a GitHub pull request (link), which highlights the contentious nature of recent modifications.

The heart of the matter appears to be a call for reconciliation and a return to foundational principles of cooperation and mutual respect among developers. The reference to the golden rule underscores a desire to move past the current impasse and focus on constructive solutions. Furthermore, the situation serves as a learning opportunity for the community, shedding light on the implications of allowing significant increases in non-transactional arbitrary data, deemed by some as "abusive and risky." This acknowledgment of the potential for negative outcomes suggests a collective need to reevaluate and potentially recalibrate the project's direction to prevent further escalation and division.