Bug fixes, yes.

But rewriting Bitcoin for an unverified, disprovable threat is fraud disguised as foresight by a community who have a sunken cost interest to do so. We dont need to upgrade Bitcoin to QR when it falsifies the model the “threat” depends on.

We’ve lived through the era where Bitcoin shattered every unsound economic theory, now we’re entering the era where it does the same to physics. The ultimate goal has always been convergence: to unify money and physics, value and reality. Bitcoin is that unification. CQC is the final performance of fiat, always has been. Final boss FUD. Bitcoin is the threat to fiat, not the other way around.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I don’t take QC seriously at all yet, I just threw that in as a hypothetical. I think bitcoin should be extremely difficult to change and forks that could lead to chain splits should be avoided. I also think it’s dangerous to demonize developers, which I’ve seen quite a lot of lately.

Which bugs? None of the BIPs are worth the risk.

Crickets. That’s what I thought. The bug fix argument is a red Hering. We need to stop development. Bitcoin is fine as is. We need to close the attack vector. Developers are the single most fatal risk to Bitcoin. Everything else, Bitcoin will prevail.

Damn, I didn’t know I needed to respond on your time while I’m working. Good to know.

For one, Unix timestamps is still not resolved.

Lol….anyway, you’re proving my point. Not needed, nice to have, no one is using it, superfluous. Not worth the risk. Bitcoin needs to be scarce and immutable. That’s what we need to solve for. Or it’s done.

iMmUtAbLe!

😂

Hey, Lopp is no better 👀. Both sides are sus.

OK, LOL.