Segwit and Taproot are amazing. Having an extremely high burden of proof that a soft fork is necessary doesn't mean we're toxic to all of them. It's inaccurate
Discussion
The fact that a "we" gets to decide, is an enourmous weakness in bitcoin.
Hopefully Bitvm allows a reduction of many of these changes and moving them to a layer2.
The hell are you on about?... You're exhausting.
Every node runner can decide their own rules. There is no formal "we". I'm referring to the generalized view of maxis. Which is the generalization you started
Ok, allow me to spell it out for you:
The fact a majority or even one other person gets to decide soft or hard forks everyone else must follow to participate in the network is a weakness. Like democracy or a theocracy, bitcoin is vulnerable to the same things they are.
A better alternative is individual choice. Hopefully a bVM enables this as would Drivechain.
I used some big words here, so a simpler version is: i do not like taproot and several other bips, but must go along with them against my will.
Two i do like , drivechain, is not accepted by the majority of tweeters or a minority of core devs, the priesthood.
The fact they get to decide this means bitcoin is not freedom money.
It could be with tech like BitVM or Drivechains which allows addition of features permissionlessly, which means further bips on main will not be needed, and even past one might be removed for the sake of ossification.
Maxi's are in general toxic to bips.
The fact that you don't realize you're arguing against yourself makes this absolute comedy gold.
Not an argument.
He lost the argument when he used an ad hominem “lame” argument. 😆
He lost the argument when he claimed soft forks he doesn't agree with are mandatory
None of this matters. The idea should be good enough to stand on its own.
Agreed! nostr:npub1w72nkwnrhncuwjxmmmh3px74dhjgcv8de5nayzfygrp6mj33e96sumwyhg's opinions have no influence on my node, thankfully 😉
Sidechain scaling and merge mining has been around since satoshi was writing on bitcoin talk.
Namecoin in 2011, Blockstream sidechain white paper in 2014 by Graham Maxwell, Paul Sztorc Bip300 idea in 2015, Sergio Lerner Rootstock white paper in 2016.
Then everyone started fighting of blocksize in 2017 and moved toward lightning as the panacea scaling solution.
It’s now 2023 and it’s clear lightning has been an uphill battle. They only way to make it user friendly is via custodians and have third party LSPs providing liquidity.
So it makes sense to look for alternative ideas rather than be myopic.
What are you thoughts on blocksize?
Keep mainchain the same. Then use sidechains to scale.
So you would have been a "toxic maxi" during the block size wars?
I am not a toxic person. I also see bitcoin as experiment that could still fail.
I put it in quotes for a reason...
Derail
Ideas don't stand on their own. People adopt and enforce them.
Also it's a debate. The argument i am referring to is the statement within the debate, not the debate itself. So your lack or relevant counter-statements, and instead just derailing into comedy defacto means i won. Just like the monero/asic debate. I do enjoy these chats, dan. We will open your mind one day.