Nostriches…. Read this from
@Conza on BIP-110
You are all on Notice:
“The principle behind BIP110 is crystal clear & unassailable. That is why there have been no principled (valid) objections to it.
I will always support anything that improves Bitcoin's quality as money.
And in fact, those moaning about a "lack of consensus" whilst also supporting (or ignoring) bCore blowing up OP_Return (which had far less than BIP110) is a rank contradiction. Blaming those trying to defend Bitcoin i.e. minimise @bitcoincoreorg's economically illiterate approach that results in Bitcoin's quality as money being reduced, falls into the same category.
Further, as to whether to activate or not in of itself is ultimately irrelevant to its justification. Just like taxation is theft isn't changed by whether the hoi polloi, congress, & or the senate vote or pass legislation claiming otherwise.
In fact, every single Bitcoiner currently whining about BIP110 'cus practical x reason': would have supported the principle historically (and in technically far worse activation circumstances). Why don’t some like it now that it’s actually being pursued with conviction, after every reasonable rational response from bCore has been rejected? Because they're either; ignorant, arrogant, a dupe, a knave, invested, conflicted, and/or compromised), or all of the above.
Asking me whether I "can in good conscience keep using BTC after causing so much drama" is actually insane levels of gaslighting. The war started again in wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com . bCore had already won the first OP Return war in 2014 but instead of doing the same playbook that worked; they chose to be 'captured cucks' paid in fiat, who don't run nodes, and are funded by 'VC & shitcoin land' folks, so they decided to lay down their arguments & get on their knees instead of allowing the cat to get the rats (fix the bugs, instead of updating the documentation).
It's the equivalent of chiding @RonPaul and supporters for sparking the rEVOLution & wanting to END THE FED etc. because they disrupted the Republican convention and "caused so much drama". RINO's (BINO's) complaining about RP being a kook etc. for wanting to support sound money. Lamenting the issue of central banking being raised at all.
You're basically asking me—how in good conscience can I keep supporting liberty, if others object? For all the 'fence sitters', who say they are anti-spam but demonstrate otherwise through their actions: if you're against statism, well so, why bother? You going around telling other libertarians loudly: "yOu DoN'T HaVe CONsenSus!?"
The claim is that Bitcoin's potential as money (i.e. becoming world's most common medium of exchange) would be "dead"; when the monetary properties that made it what it is are negatively impacted e.g. centralising, increases costs more than otherwise would be the case for Bitcoiners without the spam [being mitigated] etc).
It's a counterfactual. A compared to argument. Basic economic logic. Which is why the dev syndromers (enGinEers) don't get it. It's always been about mitigation and making it harder to reduce Bitcoin's quality as money (all else being equal). There's still no better alternative re: fiat, or shitcoins etc.
So, no. I’ll be wearing my BIP110 hat regardless of outcome at the next Bitcoin meet-ups. I'll actually be more self-righteous if it fails, as hard as that is to fathom.
It’ll forever be a signal to the people who actually understood what was at stake — Bitcoin's quality as money — and help me instantly grok who are the mindless cowardly larpers who pretended they did but clearly haven’t done the work.
Again, I will always support anything that improves (or maintains) Bitcoin's quality as money.
A challenge for those who may be groaning still, go ahead and state your "principled" objection, which is on your own terms and I'll highlight how you'll need to update it (and accept you're wrong). Be better, fight the cognitive dissonance. Support Bitcoin as money only.
