95% Support For Bitcoin Soft Fork?
https://blossom.primal.net/072a2aaa2173520aa7124f12ae5807f4f7c83a0466e97c00804cc0be8d3b3099.mp4
Discussion
Whelp, looks like nostr:nprofile1qy8hwumn8ghj7mn2w4khqtndv5hszythwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmny9uqzpprrqa5g5z0vzy5k06c9gnnc485gcj84qufv88k5j8ljkmaqrxhgkgzyc0 agrees.
Hell no 🤣
Yes LFG
You spent 6 months doing mental gymnastics that relay policy would suffice when we told you a consensus change was necessary.
Now you're doing mental gymnastics that's there's overwhelming support for a consensus change.
Good luck! 😬
Jameson Lopp is an evil shitcoiner who is trying to turn Bitcoin into Ethereum like shitcoin.
He really likes 💩ETH💩 and works with it with his Casa.
His manipulations are really disgusting.
Yes. Keep bitcoin as money.
I'm not supporting a fork as of yet:
- We haven't really tried relay policy at scale yet, let's see what happens with Knots at 10-20% percent more of the network first.
- Forking is always a technical risk. Remember we're in this mess to begin with largely because of a unintended side effect of the taproot soft fork. Any fork must be carefully considered.
- If not backed by the core camp (i.e the fork is contentious) a chain split will probably occur, with deleterious consequences for the Bitcoin market and ecosystem.
- I have a suspicion that some people in the core camp are trying to bait us into forking off into a variant of Bitcoin instead of doing anything about spam. I have no evidence of this though, it's more of a gut feeling.
- Consensus is really hard and slow to change. That's a good thing overall. But not so good when playing whack a mole with spammers.
- Relay filters is actually better for this since you can change them on your own node without coordinating. It's not quite so powerful as consensus but a lot faster to respond.
Keep up the good work
Is there already is illegal non-financial data on-chain?
If so how does a fork solve this?
Seems like we would need a new coin from scratch? Rather than a fork.
The fact that you have to ask if there is any illegal data on chain says that even if there is it’s not obvious and not natively supported by the network. Any illegal data mined in the op_return part of the transaction will be known about because:
1. It is a full contiguous string of data that can potentially be dragged and dropped into video playing software without any complex reformation of data
2. The reason op_return was created in the first place was for a way to include a very small amount of arbitrary data in a transaction, meaning arbitrary data is op_returns purpose. Therefore increasing the default op_return limit 1250x signals that bitcoin now supports and facilitates the relaying and storage of arbitrary data which must include illegal data as well.
As soon as illegal data was mined in bsv using op_return it was known about…
So there is illegal data on-chain outside of OP_ R, right?
Idk, possibly. Maybe if you piece together lots of chunks of data hidden in the witness section of a transaction, you might be able to interpret an illegal image etc, but because it would have had to have been hacked in in multiple chunks, it is neither obvious nor supported and so a fork is not necessary.
Edit: a fork to remove the illegal data is not necessary. A softfork to prevent it being put in op_return may be warranted.
Professor Kratter .... on fire today.
If for some reason this did end in a hardfork. In no way should the anti-spam/csam version be call anything different other then “Bitcoin”. Let the spam/csam supporters think of a creative name for their blockchain.