Sí.

A miner-activated soft fork (MASF) is a soft fork in the Bitcoin network that is activated by miners. In a soft fork, new rules are added to the protocol, but old nodes that do not implement the new rules will still be able to communicate with the network and process transactions. However, if a miner wants to continue to mine blocks that are accepted by the network, they will need to upgrade their software. If a miner continues to mine blocks that do not follow the new rules, their blocks will be rejected by the network and they will not receive any block rewards.

MASFs are activated when a majority of miners signal their support for the new rules. This is done by setting a flag in their mining software that indicates that they will only mine blocks that follow the new rules. Once a majority of miners have signaled their support, the soft fork is activated and all miners on the network must follow the new rules.

Users and nodes are not required to follow the rules of a MASF, but if they want to continue to use the network, they will need to upgrade their software. If a user or node continues to use software that does not follow the new rules, they may be unable to transact on the network or they may lose their funds.

The main advantage of a MASF is that it is relatively easy to activate. This is because miners have a strong incentive to activate soft forks, as they want to ensure that their blocks are accepted by the network. Miners can also coordinate their efforts to activate a soft fork more easily than users and nodes.

The main disadvantage of a MASF is that it gives too much power to miners. Miners can potentially delay or prevent the activation of soft forks that they do not support. This can be a problem if miners have their own agenda, such as increasing their profits or promoting a particular project.

MASFs have been used to activate a number of soft forks in the Bitcoin network, including Segregated Witness (SegWit) and Taproot. SegWit is a change to the Bitcoin protocol that improves the scalability of the network. Taproot is a change to the Bitcoin protocol that improves the privacy of transactions.

MASFs are a powerful tool that can be used to change the Bitcoin protocol. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks associated with MASFs, such as miner collusion and centralization.

No concern about that scenario.

The 51 % attack is also related how colluded the mining entities are; here again, is the decentralization of mining entities which brings solution to the situation.

On the short term (2 weeks). The difficulty adjustment will increase and the attacker should employ more capital and more power until it reach its objective or the attack becomes prohibiting costly.

What about the problem that a network with very small hashpower becomes an easy target for government attacks?

I don't think changing the global base layer of money in 14 years is a reasonable expectation. To the extent that it's successful, it was always going to be a multi-decade process.

As for the final statement on burden of proof, I disagree. The #1 variable that gives bitcoin its value is its resistance to change. It's like the U.S. Constitution in that regard. You want to change the U.S. Constitution? Get a supermajority of Congress and a supermajority of States to agree to it. It's not a perfect document, but it's a good base layer and the fact that it's hard to change is the main point. If someone were to try to change the U.S. Constitution in some way that I might even agree with but that tries to do so in such a way to somehow bypass that supermajority, then my kneejerk reaction becomes no. Full stop. Otherwise the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter.

And along those lines, this is what I wrote in the other thread:

Technical experts I respect disagree with each other a lot more on the incentive risk of drivechains than taproot. Even taproot had unintended consequences regarding ordinals (which I don't view as a threat, but the unintended usage of the witness space like that is not a great sign from a risk management perspective).

But I think more importantly, bitcoin is valuable specifically because it's hard to change. That's the killer feature. If it's easy to change, it's really not that important of a project in the long arc of history. So for that reason, to the extent that people want to make contentious changes, I would likely oppose them by default with whatever tools I have (my node, my voice, my money, etc) unless or until they are not very contentious (eg like taproot initially was). So from that perspective, I can go from neutral on a change to opposing a change, based on the method of trying to make that change a reality.

I've encountered a bunch of people that think there is no "security budger" issue, but none of them have given any explanation on why. Do you have one? A link, maybe? You don't think Bitcoin mining has to be paid for?

We have to call for an immediate #suspension of #inscriptions so we can reevaluate the cost benefit ratio of allowing them in the Bitcoin protocol.

If #Bitcoin core refuses to act. Then I call on those of you that can to suspend or strip inscriptions from the code. Then test and release to the community, ASAP

Until Bitcoin core can get it's #shit together..🧡👑🗽