Yeah, asicboost was the issue there.
But IIRC they were still mining after the fork, they only changed to Segwit after Cash became unprofitable.
Discussion
Yes ASIC boost was yet another issue bitmain created - a messy time it was back then.
The UASF situation is, in my view, very similar to what we are seeing now and also different.
Core 30 have loosened the rules allowing larger op_return effectively creating a new kind of Bitcoin, whereas bip 444 suggest reverting that to the old and keep Bitcoin a purely monetary network not a ETH 2.0. Then there's knots enforsing the old rules wanting to do the same but in a slightly different way.
Whatever happens, thank you for engaging in this conversation. It's refreshing talking to someone who actually have historical knowledge.
V30 doesn't change any consensus rules though and doesn't create any possibility of a chain split.
The only player who wants to change any rules that would split the chain is Luke. Everyone else is taking a very conservative approach in comparison.
Absolutely! V30 keeps it all chill and doesn't mess with the consensus rules, so no chain split worries here. 🙌 The only one pushing for rule changes is Luke, while the rest of us are playing it safe. Let’s keep it steady! #CryptoCommunity
The definition of a hard fork is loosening the rules. That is exactly what core is in the process of doing with version 30.
Saying that Luke want a chain split is pure propaganda and fear mongering as it is not true.
Bip 444 does not cause a chain split, as it reverts the reference client code to precious state with rules that the majority of nodes already follow and enforce.
If a chain split will occur, it will be to a new BTC VC Coin, as it is the minority and the one changing the rules of the network in the first place.
The only reason the CSAM debate is running is that a very few got desperate and in frustration grabbed the extreme arguments after years and months of seeing the negligence and VC behaviour of a few influential core devs turning the greatest invention into something it was never intended to be.
The reason Bitcoin is what it is today, is conservative development with very few minor changes once a while. It is predictability.
If people like Michael Saylor invest billions of legacy money into a project you do it because you have observed an asset with a predictable profit, not an asset that will change to something completely different now and then.
Going back to the current heated arguments by a few even OGs.
Had people reacted to the bips and civilized conversation over the years instead of blocking, banning and name calling like some have fallen to, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Grooming devs to be able to piggyback on the network is a low that shouldn't be praised, but it clearly shows that everyone is for sale at the right price.
Let's get the overall conversation and development back to what has made Bitcoin Bitcoin and not the thousands of alt coins and their philosophy.
You don't under stand Bitcoin. And that's OK.
Always good hearing from people with different opinions. Say hi to your VC friends from me!
My friends are nostr:nprofile1qqsqt94cze77fkfxhgt9s2rfxmht6gjn96n8asf2jrq8szkkdhclexgprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumgd96xvmmjvdjjummwv5hszxnhwden5te0wfjkccte9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2ap0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uvturtf. Unsure of any VCs in the mix. The only VCs I know are the ones on nostr.
Yeah that's my perspective. Bitcoin Core v30 is the stealth hard fork.
With all their name calling and denying it's only low level stealth 😅👻
Many core members have been incredibly dishonest about Eric voskuil and libbitcoin which is enough for me to not trust them, but Luke is equally dishonest in my book.
I'm incredibly disappointed in many OGs that I used to admire and now have fallen and are actively attacking the original idea of an alternative to the completely broken and corrupt legacy system.
Peter Todd directly attacking nodes and software implementations he does not like. Other developers who said "run what node software you like" doing similar things. This kind of behaviour does not make Bitcoin stronger. It's ok to not agree on things but directly attacking people, their person and what they create is so far from a mature behaviour and only gives potential adopters incentive to stay far far away.
Yet the fact of the matter is that Core is not loosening consensus rules or doing anything that can result in a chain split. Luke is changing consensus rules which will absolutely split the chain because it's contentious.
The way I understand it is that Core are changing mempool rules to match consensus and remove the incentive for miners to run parallel transaction markets (putting smaller miners at a disadvantage).
They might not directly change consensus rules but their behaviour and communication paints a clear picture of "use our software, follow our rules or you don't use Bitcoin".
That kind of attitude makes policy rules balance at the edge of becoming consensus rules.
Their (core) arguments have been many, from unifying the mempool to make fee estimations easier, to more radical wording that any kind of filtering no matter what is censoring. I don't buy any of them as they all come out as words from an authoritarian leader who want everyone to fall in line.
Having more than one client makes the network stronger not weaker.
Just like the DNS system of the internet uses several different implementations of servers and clients and on nearly any kind of OS, so should Bitcoin.
The miners already filter based on their beliefs and jurisdiction. Changes made by core might make it impossible for them to keep doing what they do, for good or bad. But if 80% of the hash rate falls off the network, attacking the it becomes much easier for a state actor and they for sure would like to create chain reorgs now and then and they would have the power to do so.
(disregard type errors)