Nostr Web Client

Any group can at any time propose or unilateraly decide to run a soft forked version, it was always possible.

Yes, any group can soft or hard fork. This group is the first group that has this much traction behind normalizing consensus-level behavioral gating for "safety".

Like I said, if you do constrain at consensus, you normalize control at L1 and open the door for future parameterization under "safety" banners.

A soft fork that prunes behaviors creates a focal point (maintainers + large clients + pools) that can be lobbied, sued, or regulated. The more "safety" is cited, the easier it is to extend the scope (AI-safety, biosecurity, financial integrity, carbon).

Lawmakers don't need new statutes; they can simply point to "Bitcoin already excludes Y", and press for Z (e.g., "exclude sanctioned payload types", "restrict non-KYC script paths"). You've demonstrated precedent and capability.

So I never said that any group can't soft or hard fork. I am writing about this group because the consensus changes they've proposed are backed by a lot of Bitcoiners and there are pros and cons to this soft fork. However, I don't think most understand the difference between consensus rules and policy rules.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ronin 1mo ago

Since it is and always has been possible, it's indifferent wich group does it, even without this proposal(wich I'm against at least without strong consensus) a nation state or other attacker could make a SF version that is more "safe" and convince other or have many attackers running his version. what will decide is economic actors and POW.

Control-Plane Capital 1mo ago

Yes, it is indifferent which group does it, as long as it gets enough traction to change the consensus rules of Bitcoin.

If it does, then I'll care about the consequences since I own Bitcoin.

I don't know what your point is, but good luck.

Ronin 1mo ago

My point is this is not a new attack vector, it was always possible and something that would/could happen at any point, even if this SF doesn't go through the same might happen in the future for any other reason. It's not a precedent in the sense of some new attack. If this happens it also concerns me as it should any hodler, the thing is Bitcoin must be able to survive this scenarios otherwise it would be DOA. In this scenario i believe everythingis against the SF.