SegWit increased the blocksize 4x and Taproot gave us monkee jpegs. If they were an attack, who merged Taproot and whoās paying the Bitcoin Core developers? Especially the handful of devs who have authority to merge code.
Bitcoin is a revolution to separate money from the state and destroy fiat. Does BlackRock and Michael Saylor really want to be a part of this? Or is it in their best interest to oppose this at all costs?
Monkey jpgs on-chain were an unexpected side effect of base layer changes that were made to improve privacy & scaling. That's exactly why we should AVOID making MORE unnecessary changes & chasing other features until all the things we can do have been implemented & properly explored.
It was not unexpected. It was planned from the get go with Segwit.
We fucked it up by not listening to Satoshiā¦ā¦
Itās already to late and now weāre suck with what looks to be the greedy miners coming up with ways to make the fee market worse.
Who funded lighting labsā¦..
Who made the push for Segwitā¦..
Why didnāt we just raise the block size like Satoshi intended?
The greedy miners
If Iām guessing right will try to make a smaller blocksize chain to raise the fees.
Miners are greedy.
Smaller blocksize actually makes it easier to run a node. So I am in favour of this tbh.
This is a bad statement
Comments like this are stupid & exhausting. You need to read The Blocksize War.
Donāt need to I was around for it and seen what has happened since.
An intelligent person on the losing side of a fight would want to investigate & find out why. But then again, the lack of desire to learn is often what makes people losers in the first place... š
There was/is no fight.
I stated my opinion.
Like it or not.
I stand by it.
Like I said I was there for the block wars. Long before & Iām still here now stacking sats lmfao.
The only losers are the ones who think their opinion is the only one that matters.
We all like btc for our own reasons thatās why weāre here.
The blocksize war isnāt over by a long shot.
Why do you think we have l2,l3 etc cuz thereās an inherent issue with scaling on the base chain.
Big blocks prevent decentralization. They prevent average users from independently auditing the system. If we had gigabyte blocks it still wouldn't make the base layer competitve with modern fiat payment networks & it would hand over the network to Google & Visa & the other corp monsters.
If only Visa sized corps have the capacity to run a node, then they can change the rules however they like. They'd neuter it & censor it & make Bitcoin one more tool of enslavement.
This is not my opinion, it's just a fact. Bitcoin is what the economically active nodes say it is. If there are only a few nodes, then we have just recreated the Fed banks & their collusion would change everything in their own favor at user expense.
Big blocks cannot ever solve the scaling problem, but they could destroy Bitcoin. Scale has to be achieved via tech that adds an order of magnitude to the number of txns without compromising the ability for average users to audit the system. The only way to do this is with layers like Lightning, which is already a fantastic leap forward & it still has lots of room for growth & improvement.
This is so obvious it hurts. I canāt believe weāre still discussing big blocks and bitcoin canāt scale.
Not problems:
+ scaling
+ security budget
+ lack of shitcoinery features
Actual problem: self custody
+ normies are scared of losing keys
+ no private inheritance
Bitcoin isnāt broken. Be patient and play the long game. If youāre sad and angry, get outside and relax.
Did I say it was broken?
Iāve probably been in the game longer then you.
Iām actually very happy and touch grass all the time.
āWe fucked it up by not listening to Satoshiā¦ā¦
Itās already to late and now weāre suckā¦ā
Yes, you said we fucked it up and now itās too late. We didnāt and itās not.
Correct fucked up not broken. Fixes can be made.
Think 100y out.
Think 1000y out.
Are we making the right choices for now?
Are we making choices for 100y from now?
Are we making choices for 1000y from now?
Are we here to get rich or change the world for the better?
When someone says something is ātoo lateā and āweāre stuckā, I interpret that as meaning it canāt be fixed. Thanks for clarifying.
We are fucking up by not allowing for sidechain scaling.
We could oassufy layer 1.
Letās devs experiments and build cool shit on layer 2z
Stopping all this arguing and politics. Bitcoin is about freedom. We should need to ask for permission on how we wish to use our bitcoin.
š« ā¤ļøš
We should *not need to ask permission to use our bitcoin.
You mean #echash?
Sit the fuck down you deviant
I fucking love everything about nostr bitcoin and all ya Mfers.
You cannot change Bitcoin. But you can use it however you wish.
I cant but miners can soft fork
Not if the users that pay them reject their blocks
The users would have no reason to reject them, soft fork is within the current rules.
It changes the incentives of the network. And Paul being the piece of shit that he is knows there isn't network support so he is trying to go around users & appeal to miners directly. He is also screwing with precedents for updating the network which puts miners & users at odds & sews division. This whole thing is an attack purpetrated by a skeezy mf.
My point is, my node wouldn't reject the blocks. So what you're talking about is users hard forking out Paul's changes?
Yeh itās funny. Which token will the hard forkers use?
Bitcoin with Drivechain will be using BTC.
Paulās demeanor was a concern for me too, especially talking about a MASF and secret softforks.
Iāve listened to hours of Paul talking, and determined he is a very frustrated nerd. He has even compared Bitcoin code to Dragon Ball Z š
Paul never had any intention to do a "secret softfork". He told everyone this is possible, and nobody knew before he said it. The dubious thing would be to do it in secret.
Iāve come to realized a MASF is a sort of check on powers. Right now, if thousands of people want drivechains, weāre stuck with the Core developers to decide what philosophy Bitcoin should follow. Did you know Taproot was implemented with something called a "Speedy Trial"? Nobody complained about that, because the "experts" said it would be fine.
Softforks cannot kill Bitcoin. This is not something we should be concerned with. If Bitcoin is that fragile, then in the future we could be one softfork away from destroying the economy. Softforks are backwards compatible and give you the freedom to opt-out, which is the individual liberty Bitcoin provides.
There was a ton of debate over speedy trial & a bunch of people unhappy about it.
"Class of 2020 here to fix bitcoin" embarrassing takes starter pack
Studied from the greats like Adam Back, Gregory maxwell, Hal finney and satoshi who were all advocates for sidechain scaling.
Nothing wrong with sidechains. As you continue your studies, youāll learn how Adam built a sidechain using a separate federation.
Go build your sidechain. Just donāt propose to hack bitcoin or give miners powers they donāt currently have.
Liquid is not a real sidechain because itās federated. Even Adam Back and Sergio Lerner (inventor of the Rootstock/RSK sidechain) will admit this.
Real sidechains work peer-2-peer.
No gatekeeper. No middle men. Are merged mined with the parent chain. Fees go to those who provide the proof of work for executing the sidechain transactions not unknown federation members who can collude to steal your funds.
It seems clear to me that both drivechains and liquid use a federation. The mechanics are different but in both cases there is a group that has the power to validate transactions and who can collude and steal funds. There is no free lunch.
When you set up your sidechain you can ask the big mining companies to be in your private federation. If you trust them as drivechain validators, you should trust them as your sidechain validators. No need to hack bitcoin and change the incentives of the core protocol.
Miners can steal from lightning a channel as well. But nobody cares about that.
Only because dārivechains are shitcoins šæ ā
Are bch and bsv mergers mined? If not why?
I donāt think so.
Namecoin was the first merged mined altcoin.
Then Rootstock followed.
I am pretty sure litecoin also allows for merge mining with dogecoin.
I will look into Sergio Lerners old blogpost. Heās dives deep into history of merge mining blockchains.
Ugh merged mining happened so long ago now lol feels like forever.
People who donāt mine need to stop assuming they know what āminersā will or wonāt do.
