"Futures markets are fiat and not what bitcoiners do"
For those of you newer to Bitcoin, the last time there was a contentious fork, a futures market in 2017 was put up by Bitfinex.
nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3uamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwp6kytnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46z7qpqwnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqcjfkft will tell you with a straight face they have high conviction in their fork, but will dodge a trustless on chain futures contract, and will ignore the market currently prices a fork at under 5%.
He can block me on Twitter, but he can't block the market.
Important to call out Dathon Ohm is now lying (misleading?) the consensus process by removing the rejected langauge about a reactive activation method, but may have to employ it anyway?
It'll get circulated once the new proposal comes out, deceit is not how you build rough consensus.
nevent1qqszllafk56y6mwwch9w3eu6u48dzn0wrmfdynlftlrhky3uy56tu8c0c6dc5
FWIW:
This may already be answered elsewhere, so bear with me if it's been made clear or if the paper was debunked.
The 2018?-ish paper I have seen mentioned in various debates on knots vs core mentions one image already in the blockchain suspected (but not verified) of being CSAM.
If someone dug up the transaction containing this image and made it public or maybe if law enforcement verified that it was indeed CSAM (perhaps they found the victim and/or perpetrator) - would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't continuous and/or "sanctioned" data OR result in a bunch on the Knots side quitting Bitcoin (or maybe forking from a block 7+ years in the past)?
>would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't [...] "sanctioned"
That's nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7l3vw43's position yes, to the best of my understanding anyways.
It wasn't possible until October so the paper is wrong
You literally don't understand the proposal so, I wouldn't bet you could parse whether it could be reactive if not specifically deployed as such. RTFM, thanks.
Don’t panic. He is building consensus and it is a very good thing to remove that activation method as it was rejected by most users. If Luke wants the reactive way he can make his own fork proposal to do it. Indeed I think it is a good idea to separate both. I would support one and reject the other one.
