Thread

neither control bitcoin neither can change the rules run and use your own node secure bitcoin keys yourself

I’m on that train with you. I just want all the devs to get humbled, all of them.

there are many devs most do, some dont

i have been very consistent, you should run what you want just know that it can absolutely result in a chainsplit if you run a client that pushes through a soft fork without consensus

> There is literally nothing in his post that is bullshit. - soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit - bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero

Read this

Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion

You started misguiding again without going into nuances.

Chainsplits created by contentious soft forks are not meant to be permanent. &#10...

1. That's not what he said. Also define consensus there's two different consensuses at play here. 2. Wait Bcash had majority support and still lost? Interesting. I didn't know being influential ACTUALLY makes you the majority. The CSAM stuff is a red herring but that post was accurate. Guys JUST refute him on the merits and this would be over.

there has never been a soft fork pushed through without consensus but if one were to it would natually result in a chainsplit otherwise any of us could change bitcoin rules at will this is basic shit you should improve your understanding rather than continuing your harassment of me but so be it either way

A properly written softfork only activates with say 90% consensus by a specific block height. If it doesn't reach 90% then nothing happens, nothing to see here, move along.

that assumes the soft fork promoters actually want to build consensus

SegWit was a softfork that resulted in bcash hard fork a couple of weeks in advance. History sometimes is more complex than we think. The bcash hard fork happened mainly over SegWit ("ugly code that introduces technical debt and encourages non monetary uses" which sounds familiar if you ask me ) and not like most think solely over blocksize. Although bcash came with 8M blocks from the beginning if I remember correctly that got later increased to 32M, when BSV forked to get their infinite blocksizes.

Nobody is PUSHING this softfork without consensus. I don't know why you are making false statements. If that's the case then you might not have seen reply like this on that BIP. Legitimate concerns are being addressed. Why do you think any BIP will get instant buy-in from all of the plebs without any pushback/arguments? And I am not saying chainsplit wouldn't occur. Do you actually read anything what I said in my post? Probably not because if that's the case then you wouldn't have said that I am harassing you. I am just calling you out for your compromised/delusional behavior. And where were you when shitcoin core devs were pushing changes like op_return limit without broad support from bitcoiners? You never made a big deal like this during that time. Can you see why I keep calling you CORECUCK?

> softfork without consensus > you wouldn't have said that I am harassing you > I keep calling you CORECUCK lmfao

And also only the so called economic nodes actually have any power over the protocol. So if they spin up a bunch of sybils and make it look like they have consensus but the economic nodes were never onboard it's still a contentious chain split.

As usual you keep taking posts/comments out of context. You can block or mute me if you want but the beating will continue until you stop being CORECUCK. 😎

Yeah its the same picture this is still the blocksize war we fucked up and nobody knows what to do about it apparently

you can start by not calling it bcash

it has ABLA now. it starts at 32 MB and can double only once per year if blocks are full the whole time. then if they are not full it keeps decreasing until it reaches 32 MB again. if it hasn't increased in a very long time it's allowed to 4x in a year.

What is the current average blocksize? Did it get spamed to only become usable in data centres like Core people suggested?

Are youb saying Bitcoin maxis (Knotzis) are now in their own camp "bcash" and should fork or that they should switch to bcash (BCH) as it is more aligned with their values? I don't use that term in a derogatory way. Just like I don't think Zcash and Dash are bad names.

no. BCH blocks are 32 mb right now and blocks are not full. every maxipad is lying their face off about how difficult it is to run a node with 8 mb blocks, or even full blocks under the status quo. they are larping as rich patricians when they can't shell out for a stick of RAM and a SSD. meanwhile vitalik runs an eth node on a dell laptop. it's not that fucking hard.

- 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

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.

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 (

Clark Moody Bitcoin

Dashboard

The entire Bitcoin economy at a glance

) 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.

Nope. You're simply wrong. It did not change.

Aren't you a complete idiot? Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network. Cored devs - Bitcoin in 2021 is Money. Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.

- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit - bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero

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.

No, it objectively is not a hard fork.