Thread

Replies (79)

↩ replying to ODELL
Yes and no. If the people who managed to pushed through the op_return change also buddy buddy with the majority of, or the largest mining pools, they do in some way control it. Then they have effectively bypassed most of the nodes in the network, just like the "pay a miner to include in a block" and on a larger scale. If this happens where is the decentralised part of bitcoin?
Not buying the argument that I am legally responsible for other people's actions Not a fan of expanding op-return limits, but also expect BIP 444 to create more problems than it solves So tired of all the genius rockstars fucking with shit
There is literally nothing in his post that is bullshit. Try to educate yourself first on softfork and hardfork activation before claiming that this is all BS. You are getting more and more miserable and you are also making Nostr plebs miserable. I hope some well known (honest) influencers on the Nostr start countering your BS arguments at some point.
↩ replying to ODELL
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.
↩ replying to ODELL
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? image
↩ replying to npub1ah3a...l76e
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.
↩ replying to ODELL
- 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 image
↩ replying to ODELL
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.
↩ replying to Aaron van Wirdum
--> "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_
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.
↩ replying to π–‹π–Žπ–†π–™π–‰π–Šπ–“π–Žπ–Šπ–— (Β―`◕‿◕´¯)
- 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
↩ replying to ODELL
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.
↩ replying to ODELL
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.