@Unhosted Marcellus casually proved - with receipts - that the CC “bug” was actually a backdoor (https://x.com/oomahq/status/2085717166884618584), and not even 3 hours later BTCPay server gets hacked. I mean, I’ve had my lifetime fill of “coincidences” in the last week alone. A state attack hand-in-hand with a narrative control campaign could not be more obvious, if you ask me, but you keep taking those white pill’s prescriptions, courtesy of @FRANCIS - BULLBITCOIN.COM. 🌈 You may cheer BIP-110 failing in a couple of days, but the joke is on you, my dudes. This is all happening *because* BIP-110 is happening. A failed UASF means our enemies (i.e. the enemies of Bitcoin) have won - by preventing the only thing that stood in their way.

Replies (10)

I generally agree with you beside that it is happening because of BIP 110. It is happening because you don't want (that's very good) to adopt their "rules" and because they want to take over Bitcoin to destroy it. They want honest Plebs out of Bitcoin and I believe they will try to split chains. Its a small difference but IMO relevant, I don't know if I've explained it right tho.
He thinks the cc disaster is a “bug” and not an intentionally placed backdoor. According to him he’s handling white pills while the rest of us are entertaining wild conspiracy theories. He also falls for the Red Team propaganda. I don’t think anyone who I used to respect has managed to disappoint me this much in just two days.
I might be wrong here (if I am please explain it in plain words), if nodes being currently Knots stay in same network as core: can those nodes somehow reject such change?
If BIP110 gets successfully adopted by the network at some point Core must ship bip110 into their codebase or they will not enforce the full consensus rule set. In the former case they will become equivalent peers of knots, while in the later case they will be irrelevant for the duration of the fork.