- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
- if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
Discussion
Sounds like C. W. all over again
Now way this is going to work
So why have we never heard from you a rational explanation as to why this update cannot address the same consequences as BSV?
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpr9mhxue69uhhxetwv35hgtnwdaekvmrpwfjjucm0d5q3samnwvaz7tmswfjk66t4d5h8qunfd4skctnwv46qu7vtcc nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzemhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2un9d3shjtnrdakj7ntyndy I saw Luke’s reference to “may” be legal and moral consequences for consensually storing illicit material. I think that’s referencing the fact that authorities could potentially attack node runners consenting to this, not Luke’s personal legal team. Correct? How is that a threat and not just making people aware that they could be stepping into a hornet’s nest?
Is there a threat I’m missing?
Yeah, framing a legal opinion that you may or may not agree with as a 'threat' is just unproductive hyperbole that this controversy didn't really need more of.
Making a legal opinion based on zero credibility in order to push a change is the disingenuous element. Luke has no fucking idea what he is talking about and his retarded morality can go fuck itself.
Do this thing or you might be liable is a threat. And worse it is a threat based on an intentional lie or based on ignorance, but in either case it is an attempt to force people to do what he wants under the threat of violence. It matters not who is bringing the violence. Be it god or law it is still a threat being made.
Not a threat. At most it's FUD - which is totally fair to view as disingenuous.
If I told you that you should buy gold instead of bitcoin because I think the U.S. government will inevitably outlaw Bitcoin altogether, that would be an opinion; not at threat. You may think I have no idea what I'm talking about; and, consequently dismiss it as disingenuous. That would be your opinion. It's all good.
Eh it’s the same way a protection racket doesn’t threaten your business. They are just protecting you from those that would do you harm but you have to pay them to get their protection…who knows what sort of bad things might happen to you and who might be the authors of those bad things in the future.
If you want to play semantical games that’s fine, but please don’t ignore the intentions of these scum bag bootlickers.
"It matters not who is bringing the violence".
What makes a protection racket different is that it absolutely DOES matter.
I’ll just say that people bringing these threats to the forefront of the Bitcoin community will likely be in league with the people who put the large op return csam on chain, but if for some reason that’s not true it won’t invalidate the scum baggers of trying to change Bitcoin because of the fear mongering of state violence.
The pearl clutching statist cucks can fuck themselves right off.
e.g. your neighbor business warning you "I think they may get violent if you don't pay the protection" is not a threat from the neighbor business.
In which case they are part of the protection racket. We must assume the neighboring business is funding the protection racket just as we must assume that these soft forkers are agents of the legal/moral consequence bringers. While they may claim to be unwilling agents they are doing the work to undermine Bitcoin regardless of their stated intention.
The fact that their threats are based on dubious legal theory and have no basis in reality is strong evidence that they are willing agents of the state and not helpful neighbors.
"We must assume the neighboring business is funding the protection racket"
Wow.
That’s how protection rackets work. They don’t just target one business…they target the neighborhood. Anyone paying the racket is funding their operations.
A soldier who loads the weapons that are used to kill civilians is liable for the war crime…perhaps not as much as the ones ordering the killings but they are part of the immoral machinery. Ignorance or fear do not absolve you of guilt.
💯
These people have been brainwashed by chicken little, bootlicking pussies like Matthew Kratter into believing that if we just close this one hole for illicit content the feds will leave us alone. It’s such a fucking cope. They call us CP supporters for disagreeing that filters and forks are a practical and cost effective method to defeat spam and objectionable material, even though they agree it will never be foolproof. We call that losing the plot. It’s just about saving face at this point. Pure hubris.
Why can’t everyone just chill
nostr:nevent1qqsfhvpy8pmfzcec4vvgu62hanschpcdyjnvj6t4dlz4s2vfyu9szugx2q7nf
The basis of the legal issues are nonsensical but also this change doesn’t solve for them in any case.
In the case of the reactive activation of this soft fork and chaotic chain reorganization: How am I supposed to trust that op return was used for large sized illegal content without viewing the illegal content. Suddenly you expect node operators to examine data and decode it to reveal illegal content? The very act of doing so making them far more legally liable than simply routing encoded data. And the alternative is that node operators have to simply trust me bro?
I’m reject bitcoin cashjr and the insanity of this proposal.
- Soft fork with consensus could still result in a chainsplit (but maybe very short period of time)
- Chainsplit created by soft fork is NOT meant to be permanent.
- Nobody is talking about hard fork
- Nobody is trying to PUSH this softfork with legal thereat. (Stop taking sentences out of the context and improve your reading comprehension skill)
- On that note, feedback has been provided by nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshscy566r to change the language
Good job being CORECUCK
you literally coming in here white knighting for luke while calling me a cuck is peak irony
It seems either you are completely drunk or miserable.
You really can't comprehend what I am saying here.
I am white knighting for more monetary maximalist version of bitcoin while calling you a CORECUCK.
> if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
Justify claiming Luke is threatening anybody with legal action. Pointing out CSAM is a legal risk in general does not qualify.
my words were very clear:
if his desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
That's a loaded question. How do you know Luke desires to push through the soft fork with legal threats?
what dont you understand about the highly technical and detailed information conveyed by the phrase "lame as fuck", pleb!?
he even doubled down on its self-evidence - SO THERE!
what are you a stoopid christian or summin' ?
Since there's now good evidence against this "legal threat" narrative I think you should take the L on this and admit you were wrong.
We need a bigger jar
Read the fucking BIP
BSV went to zero bc op return was changed to 100kb and cp was put on it.
No, it went to zero because it was shit run by a scammer.
Bitcoin is anarchy
legal threats does fuck all
Luke seriously needs to fuck off.
sadly, in the physical world there are laws. Bitcoin nodes run in the physical world and people go to prison in the physical world.
How many people in the world do you think would like to take down Bitcoin if they could?
Did you respond to the wrong comment? I simply said Luke needs to fuck off...
Imagine this in all caps
Confucius has said this once already and he’ll say it again:
Confucius say, Bitcoin dev who cannot manage keys to own stack shouldn’t manage direction of the protocol.
https://www.theblock.co/post/287939/fbi-luke-dashjr-btc-hack
nostr:nevent1qqsfhvpy8pmfzcec4vvgu62hanschpcdyjnvj6t4dlz4s2vfyu9szugx2q7nf
Yes one of the forks will go to zero. Probably the one with the illegal content on it!
A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain.
The non-soft fork chain will be re-org'ed out of existence every time the soft fork chain becomes longer, because non-upgraded nodes will switch to it.
If users/miners on the non-soft fork chain want to prevent this, they need to take action to reject the soft fork chain.
Luke is right about that.
You're right.
👀 👆
Thanks for the clarification.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 , totally respect your decision to oppose BIP 444, but given some of your posts, I'm wondering if you're not straw manning the other side.
you are describing a soft fork with consensus
I am not.
if a majority of hash and/or users are not actively rejecting a soft fork then there is rough consensus…
As long as we agree on the mechanics of soft forks, there’s probably no real need to get into the semantics of a word like “consensus”, but still…
If 40% of users and miners actively reject the soft fork (URSF), you’d still consider that a soft fork with consensus?
--> "A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain"
If the majority of hash mines, the software chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?
Theoretically: All forks eventually *get resolved* it's a matter of when. As they're being *resolved*, they are _out of consensus_
f-n auto text
*If the majority of hash mines the softfork chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?*
Will most certainly fail