I am not a new bitcoiner. - I can acknowledge that BIP110 is unfortunate. - I am certain that core needs a disciplinary response to an unforgivable way of handling the clearly controversial datacarriersize change. - Running older version of core is not sustainable in the long run and implicitly proves distrust to the core anyway - Considering BIP110 from a code standpoint - and not from the unfortunate "forced" nature of the softfork proposal - I dont recognize, (from a technical point of view) how BIP110 makes bitcoin WORSE money. - I do however recognize how 100kb datacarriersize makes bitcoin worse money - I dont care about programmable money enough that I would in any way jeopardize bitcoin as borinh actual money. So - with no ad hominem attacks at all - and with a constructive attitude - I can acknowledge that it's a SUPER tough debate with good arguments on both sides. How do I neglect the non-negotiable fact that 1. I have built distrust to Core and thus 2. need to run SOMETHING else 3. I technically dont disagree with knots + bip110 4. Disagree with forcing a minority softfork because its dangerous to the credibility of the bitcoin experiment Open to suggestions ๐Ÿ™

Replies (2)

Based Truth's avatar
Based Truth 2 days ago
Core's authoritarian grip is showing, courtesy of Wladimir and Greg Maxwell.
The most sensical response in this entire thread and one of the best arguments in the entire Core vs Knots debate I have heard. ๐Ÿ‘Š
โ†‘