How do fees defend against this? View quoted note →

Was Segwit a hostile fork because it didn’t have overwhelming consensus? View quoted note →

I’m not even saying that this alone provides a correct answer. I’m saying that this is a missing puzzle piece in the conversation. Some humility, contrition, and meditation on this will go a long way for you and possibly your supporters. View quoted note →

In hindsight, wasn’t Taproot a hostile fork? 1. Over 5 years later, hardly anyone uses it, except spammers. No major product market fit yet. 2. It was a “nice to have”, wasn’t a response to a threat (debatably like segwit was). 3. It ratcheted up the spam problem, which creates another problem now with another possible fork. If you supported Taproot, then what did you get wrong, such that you supported a hostile fork? Do you apologize? Before you get to anything else, it thinks it’s important that you ask yourself those two questions, then reflect on the answers.

Remember when BIP 148 caused a chain split because it didn’t have consensus months before the deadline?

Did BIP148 give control to Core and Blockstream? View quoted note →

How exactly does BIP110 give Luke and Mechanic control?

Segwit was a small group of people changing Bitcoin

View quoted note →

Did BIP148 have overwhelming consensus or was it just a minority of nodes?

Was a lynch mob behind BIP 148?

Where are the apologies from influencers who supported taproot? If you want more credibility, you might want to reflect on that time and lead with an apology before you start talking.

Who has receipts on the biggest supporters of taproot activation?

I GUESS THERE IS NONE. TIGHT View quoted note →