Profile: 1525d058...
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.
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.
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
Re: a soft fork, I have posted a question on Matthew Kratter's videos: if we only have 20% of node runners switching to knots why do you think we have sufficient consensus to force the miners to mine the soft fork blocks?
https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp2zlqylc5unn2p8n4k9y2mt870nv5hl2s2j6e5rup8ewu65205hxv9azaq
Because it’s asymmetrical.
You should read about the UASF during the block size war. The network complied with the UASF with 15% of the nodes signaling for it.
You are going to argue for the spam chain if a major chain split happens? Good luck explaining why it’s good for Bitcoin to publish CSAM to the public shareholders of foundry and Mara.
Ironically, the centralization and corporate structure of major mining pools today make the soft fork easier to implement.
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
Svetski is a coward for that stance on Core 30.
We are all retards? Then I guess I won’t waste my money on your book since I obviously won’t understand anything anyway.
Pure nihilism.
Saylor was right!!!! 😱
Thank you sir 🫡
https://fountain.fm/episode/dEVrFEYiwHe7CjjkJ2zM
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqceku5cd5utz2lj9cw62wkv9xul77mny47pamqmgwa5aw58cve4hw5uvaw
Funny, I didn’t need someone’s permission and an “invite code” to use nostr.
https://fountain.fm/episode/0XZcTeaWjlvYBMJfO7M0
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpdn9afc9w9x9j2nz6wtdx3j3xg4v6ugwryn8eg3t4xnprunr3h8c7zqr4p
What do you expect working for shitcoin magazine
https://fountain.fm/episode/mW2eLL8LTDJEthV7h3Sa
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpw98xcmsp7tlknryk5y84jrn3t7aczshu9rhzwsr42cqq46wq8tcelkfg9
Boomer can’t see the Bitcoin/Bitcoin lifeboat because it’s so much faster it already dropped survivors off on shore and is circling back to pick up more people.
The gold/gold boat is sitting there next to the sinking ship, yes you will survive but you are gonna freeze your ass off getting back to shore.
https://fountain.fm/episode/zcAlc4csTun2cGVRIa54
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqmakvfkkucr60gselk5xe4ky928d4gp73czhllvhtg9r57j48k2t7gnn45
Ok so we got the ethereum developer perspective, will you have a bitcoiner on next?
https://fountain.fm/episode/F2XMl0iPF4tPxN3AEXQO
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqkpdznelutn2e380ukd6tm7vvk55va22lva8c8ge3t8eh8euh30hs52ujs
Core/Knots is about Core removing User options.
IMO, Free and open-source software is about empowering Users.
Knots enables more options to the User.
The current B-Core team needs to reflect on the broader intentions of the Users, and of the bitcoin network itself.
https://fountain.fm/episode/vNS3UnEX1NMhmngvCl9m
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp7qj2w8r2x4j7d8qcesrgr52jrulg4afnalp66c8a42ky9lerrwp6add86
Seperating school and state would be better