this is bullshit for what its worth
sane people do not think luke or core should control bitcoin and fortunately neither do
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Agree with your second paragraph. I definitely don't _want_ to control Bitcoin.
No idea why you think that's at all related to the screenshot, though
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
- if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
It's connected to the screenshot because asserting the protocol is content agnostic is not supporting the dissemination child porn.
Your authoritarian tendencies are showing.
Tell the truth faggot.
Sounds like C. W. all over again
Now way this is going to work
- Soft fork with consensus could still result in a chainsplit (but maybe very short period of time)
- Chainsplit created by soft fork is NOT meant to be permanent.
- Nobody is talking about hard fork
- Nobody is trying to PUSH this softfork with legal thereat. (Stop taking sentences out of the context and improve your reading comprehension skill)
- On that note, feedback has been provided by @Bitcoin Mechanic to change the language
Good job being CORECUCK
> if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
Justify claiming Luke is threatening anybody with legal action. Pointing out CSAM is a legal risk in general does not qualify.
my words were very clear:
if his desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
you literally coming in here white knighting for luke while calling me a cuck is peak irony
That's a loaded question. How do you know Luke desires to push through the soft fork with legal threats?
It seems either you are completely drunk or miserable.
You really can't comprehend what I am saying here.
I am white knighting for more monetary maximalist version of bitcoin while calling you a CORECUCK.
Since there's now good evidence against this "legal threat" narrative I think you should take the L on this and admit you were wrong.
View quoted note →
Luke seriously needs to fuck off.
We need a bigger jar
Imagine this in all caps
Yes one of the forks will go to zero. Probably the one with the illegal content on it!
sadly, in the physical world there are laws. Bitcoin nodes run in the physical world and people go to prison in the physical world.
How many people in the world do you think would like to take down Bitcoin if they could?
A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain.
The non-soft fork chain will be re-org'ed out of existence every time the soft fork chain becomes longer, because non-upgraded nodes will switch to it.
If users/miners on the non-soft fork chain want to prevent this, they need to take action to reject the soft fork chain.
Luke is right about that.
You're right.
👀 👆
Thanks for the clarification.
@ODELL , totally respect your decision to oppose BIP 444, but given some of your posts, I'm wondering if you're not straw manning the other side.
Will most certainly fail
Did you respond to the wrong comment? I simply said Luke needs to fuck off...
you are describing a soft fork with consensus
I am not.
if a majority of hash and/or users are not actively rejecting a soft fork then there is rough consensus…
Does he not describe a majority hash power consensus vs a minority node/user consensus? If the users does not take action, there wont be a chain split. There is no rough consensus, and their wont be a split. Am i missing something?
sorry, ignore what I wrote, I'm retarded.
--> "A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain"
If the majority of hash mines, the software chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?
Theoretically: All forks eventually *get resolved* it's a matter of when. As they're being *resolved*, they are _out of consensus_
f-n auto text
*If the majority of hash mines the softfork chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?*
As long as we agree on the mechanics of soft forks, there’s probably no real need to get into the semantics of a word like “consensus”, but still…
If 40% of users and miners actively reject the soft fork (URSF), you’d still consider that a soft fork with consensus?
Do you have any good resources you can point me towards to understand your arguments here?
Relatively new bitcoiner and I am having trouble navigating this debate to choose the software I want my node to run on.
I think I understand the core pov. I think I understand the knots pov. Both from a semi technical perspective.
What I am struggling with is reconciliating the governance methods. Core v30's decision to "censor" the debate on GitHub, and Dashjr's decision to soft fork or whatever he wants to do.
I don't think I understand why either camps took these measures. Neither of them seem like a gesture of good faith and/or rational thinking.
What happened, that we now talk about the possibility of allowing or not allowing illegal content on every copy of the blockchain? What is the reason that this could become a topic?
Why is this bullshit?
People are using Knots or Core.
If there are other platforms with the same security, enlighten us.
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
- more people should use their own bitcoin node, they can run whatever software they want
- if the desire is to try to push through a soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
Not every soft fork leads to a chain split. While Taproot and Segwit have dissent, they haven’t resulted in a split.
There’s a non-zero probability that CSAM on nodes can be outlawed, which can’t help adoption.
While everyone can run their own node, not everyone is savvy enough to patch their bitcoin software, unless you make a highly customizable version.
every soft fork has had overwhelming consensus
if one does not it will result in a chainsplit
So when a normie friend asks what this whole debate/argument is about, how do I explain this in laymans terms?
nobody can easily change bitcoin
many want to control it
the value is that they cannot
Core easily changed Bitcoin.
core did not change bitcoin
the rules of the network literally did not change
Nope. Not true.
Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.
That’s not true to what was done. I understand we’ve all been fed a ton of different versions but this is fundamentally untrue.
Please explain how this is not exactly true.
Am I too dumb, or am I missing something? I thought that if the majority of people refuse to upgrade to #core30 or decide to run #knots, then the nodes will simply reject the those blocks with the core30 #OP_RETURN increased values as invalid / violarong the prior consensus, keeping the #bitcoin #timechain intact. Thus, if core devs want to still be relevant, they will kinda have to reverse the change. No need of a #softfork; no need of a #hardfork.
#btc is freedom, and that means choice. The node-runners are free to choose.
The problem is that core30 adoption is growing quickly, increasing the risks of corrupting the BTC chain for all node runners.
But core30 trying to change Bitcoin network to data storage. Bitcoin is money!
I am using Clark Moody's dashboard (
) where core30 is at 7.3%. Wow, that is fast adoption. Boy, was I wrong to assume that node-runners would choose not to upgrade. Let's hope that many would have manually configured the OP_RETUTN max value to the previous limit.
Clark Moody Bitcoin
Dashboard
The entire Bitcoin economy at a glance
Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network.
Core devs - Bitcoin (in 2021) is Money.
Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.
View quoted note →
Oh, it's bs! Now I get it. Thank you for your clear, constructive, informative input.
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
Hey @ODELL it seems like you always miss the point with pointing out @Luke Dashjr ‘s wild tone. The thing is core 30 brings BS to Bitcoin network. Bitcoin is money not data storage
Good parrot.
Whatever you said, Bitcoin is money and I will never allow anyone to dirty my money
Too late.
nope
Ordinals, inscriptions.
Only idiots like you continue with those fake news.
But the spammers who exploit those weaknesses are actually scared from policy filters.
Policy filters that work and kept OP_RETURN clean of data bigger than 82 Bytes.
Policy filters that work and kept OP_RETURN clean of data bigger than 82 Bytes.
Have fun playing with your BTK tokens
I repeat “F the DS.”
I agree with @ODELL on this one
Wot
> fortunately neither do
We'll see. If we get bad content in an op_return, we will know that Core controls bitcoin.