Hello world! I’m a Christian mystic, who loves spirituality and mysticism in general. However recently after a tour through Zen and Advaita I was exposed to Christian Mysticism and fell in love.

I love seeing the cosmic and immediate through the Christian frame. Let’s chat it up and dive deep into the mystery that reveals our hearts.

#introductions

You run the software you agree with. The market decides which chain is the most valuable through price and adoption.

From a protocol-governance standpoint, “if you want different rules, fork” is exactly how Bitcoin’s immune system is supposed to work. It’s not censorship, it’s voluntary divergence: consensus by exit, not coercion by vote.

Let’s make this explicit:

1. Bitcoin’s consensus norm

Bitcoin’s social contract isn’t majority rule; it’s individual sovereignty. Every node chooses which chain to follow. The overwhelming unwritten norm since 2017 (SegWit2x) is:

Protocol changes that alter core properties—block size, script rules, censorship neutrality—must attract overwhelming, near-unanimous opt-in consensus.

If a minority can’t persuade the majority, they’re free to fork. That’s how BCH, BSV, and other spinoffs emerged. BIP-444 violates that equilibrium by proposing restrictions without universal buy-in.

2. The “fork-off principle”

Any faction that wants to redefine Bitcoin’s scope—whether by expanding or contracting it—should bear the coordination cost of the fork, not impose it on everyone else.

In other words, “Don’t make the default chain pay for your moral panic.”

If they truly believe BIP-444 is essential, let them hard-fork into a “clean-chain” variant—call it BTC-Puritan—and see if market participants follow. The market will instantly settle the argument through price discovery and hash-rate migration.

3. Functional precedent

When miners and devs tried to push SegWit2x, the network’s spontaneous coordination (via UASF) demonstrated that sovereignty resides with validating nodes, not political majorities. BIP-444 supporters trying to push a “temporary censorship fork” would hit the same wall.

4. Philosophical coherence

Agency-centered perspective: freedom of use is an emergent property of voluntary systems. BIP-444 is coercive not because it restricts bytes, but because it unilaterally redefines legitimate agency on the chain. If you don’t like how others use block space, out-compete them economically or build a sidechain—don’t rewrite reality.

In short:

Yes. Let them fork off.

That’s not hostility—it’s protocol hygiene. The network that respects voluntary divergence remains antifragile; the one that enforces purity decays into bureaucracy.

Go into the heartache. Go into the pain. Go into the major thing you’re avoiding.

Sit with it.

Feel it.

It’s not there to punish you.

It’s there to liberate you.

I much prefer Mastodon over Nostr, though I do like the idea.

I agree that the “Bitcoin” part might throw a lot of potential users off. There are people who just don’t like the idea of cryptocurrencies and that’s okay. I was one of those people. I’m only open to Bitcoin because of Nostr. It is kinda a bitcoin circlejerk over here, not that it is necessarily a bad thing, it just throws people off. There are a lot of libertarian leftists looking for a new social media home and I will recommend they come here and to Mastodon. Both platforms are great. #mastodon #nostr #btc #bitcoin

Vanguard bent the knee as predicted.