ok. but even iif Chris is wrong here, I am much more worried about how will that bit be turned on. That actually scares me because ppl change, ppl get influenced, ppl can even get extorted. How is adding a human here helpful on a long run?
Chris, you are either intentionally mid-representing this soft fork, or you aren’t remembering what orphan blocks are.
https://www.lightspark.com/glossary/orphan-block
Reorganizing a block happens often- that’s why we have the little 6-block circle indicator in Sparrow for example. You should be waiting about 6 confirmations to consider a transaction fully settled. That isn’t “F***ing with property” that’s how Bitcoin works.
Btw, guess what Foundry, Blackrock, Coinbase, etc, think about what CoreV30 does- by default making bitcoin an anonymous permanent data storage service -to their property?
Not to mention myself and any other decent Bitcoin node runner.
The decision here isn’t about voting thankfully. You are free to reject the soft fork, pin and persist on the CSAM chain and call it “the real Bitcoin” if you like, just like the B-cashers do with their hard fork.
https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpzm0ttuld48qtds5l0jkmz8r07h5jj6d8wpw5c88kfr5fcyd8dxkrsxhwm
Discussion
The softfork proposal as I see it, (not finalized yet in code) is to limit the amount of data per transaction.
There is no “committee” or judge that decides which transactions are ok or not- other than the consensus rules of the network itself.
These consensus rules are why Bitcoin has value, if someone (like Peter Todd did) proposed to increase the 21 million cap- would the network accept it?
If someone proposes segwit? Or taproot? Or limiting the total amount of data per transaction?
We will see.
Keep in mind the UASF during the block size war was implemented with only 15% of the nodes signaling for it.