Nostr Web Client

Chris, you are either intentionally mid-representing this soft fork, or you aren’t remembering what orphan blocks are.

https://www.lightspark.com/glossary/orphan-block

Reorganizing a block happens often- that’s why we have the little 6-block circle indicator in Sparrow for example. You should be waiting about 6 confirmations to consider a transaction fully settled. That isn’t “F***ing with property” that’s how Bitcoin works.

Btw, guess what Foundry, Blackrock, Coinbase, etc, think about what CoreV30 does- by default making bitcoin an anonymous permanent data storage service -to their property?

Not to mention myself and any other decent Bitcoin node runner.

The decision here isn’t about voting thankfully. You are free to reject the soft fork, pin and persist on the CSAM chain and call it “the real Bitcoin” if you like, just like the B-cashers do with their hard fork.

https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpzm0ttuld48qtds5l0jkmz8r07h5jj6d8wpw5c88kfr5fcyd8dxkrsxhwm

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chris Fisher 1mo ago

Ok I get the soft fork bit. But I don’t follow who makes the call and scans for the material and sets everything in motion when necessary.

1525d058... 1mo ago

Who “made the call” to implement segwit or taproot or other soft forks?

How about the inflation bug?

The rabbit hole beckons to you brother

Harpo 1mo ago

ok. but even iif Chris is wrong here, I am much more worried about how will that bit be turned on. That actually scares me because ppl change, ppl get influenced, ppl can even get extorted. How is adding a human here helpful on a long run?

1525d058... 1mo ago

The softfork proposal as I see it, (not finalized yet in code) is to limit the amount of data per transaction.

There is no “committee” or judge that decides which transactions are ok or not- other than the consensus rules of the network itself.

These consensus rules are why Bitcoin has value, if someone (like Peter Todd did) proposed to increase the 21 million cap- would the network accept it?

If someone proposes segwit? Or taproot? Or limiting the total amount of data per transaction?

We will see.

Keep in mind the UASF during the block size war was implemented with only 15% of the nodes signaling for it.

GeneBean 1mo ago

The biggest issue here is that this BIP implies governance over Bitcoin instead of it being permissionless. I have no desire for anyone to have the ability to determine my transaction, or the block it’s in, is objectionable and that it is therefore invalid post-inclusion in the chain. That will absolutely be abused by individuals & governments and will mean there is a gatekeeper going forward. If the math is proper and my fee payment gets me included in a block, that should be the end of it just as it is now. Every node runner can turn off / opt out of the new op return stuff as I understand it, so why add something that is clearly flawed in ways that fundamentally change the permissionless nature of bitcoin?

1525d058... 1mo ago

It is not correct that a soft fork (same as segwit or taproot)

“changes the permissionless nature of Bitcoin”

Bitcoin is a system of rules, that anyone can use for peer to peer digital cash permissionlessly- but you cannot break the rules without ending up on your own hard fork with a worthless token. The rules are based originally on Satoshi’s design in the whitepaper, and they are updated according to network consensus over time.

In general, Bitcoin is based on restricting things- you cannot send the same Bitcoin twice, and the amount of Bitcoin is never more than 21 million coins for example.

This softfork in theory is not flawed, and does not require a “gatekeeper” it is a proposal to change consensus, limiting the amount of abritrary data.

It can be implemented similar to the UASF during the block size war.

GeneBean 1mo ago

True, a soft fork does not in itself change the permissionless nature, but the nature of this BIP introduces arbitrary, seemingly human initiated, chain splits that are not based on the validity of a transaction, but rather on what extra data was included as part of that transaction, or some unrelated transaction in the same block. No one’s opinion of right and wrong should have impact on my ability to settle a financial transaction on the #Bitcoin network, just as no one’s opinion of what I spend money on can stop me from handling a stack of cash (or gold) to someone to settle a transaction in person. I don’t need a governing body, or anyone else, to be able to do an in person exchange of value nor do I need someone else’s permission to transact in bitcoin today… and it should stay that way. Arbitrarily excluding blocks in the method described seems very likely to result in censorship. All useful tools, especially technological ones, can be used for both good and evil, but that’s not a reason to penalize the ones not doing the evil.

₿water 1mo ago

Chris seems to be commenting on this matter without understanding the soft fork.

I don't think anyone needs to be "in charge" of what is csam. Is it really a subjective matter? I would imagine it can be flagged by anyone. To my understanding this soft fork will fix this bug and put an end to this spam wars.