So to be clear, someone who goes through all the time and effort of setting up multiple node instances costing themselves $1,500 a month just to keep up the illusion of a minority supported position is not signaling preference. They are simply LARPing unless they also engage a known spammer and adversarial actor in a wager? Did I get that right?
Replies (2)
No im saying that it’s trivial to spin up nodes which may give the misinformed minority some small sense of victory seeing node count grow. If you are socially attacking Bitcoin consensus creating an illusion of greater support would seem like a logical move.
The plan as I have seen it unfold.
1️⃣Creating a sense of emergency✅
2️⃣Invoke the narrative of protecting the children✅ (infer the opposition is depraved)
3️⃣report the growing node count with regularity as an appeal to democracy✅
This is what politics does. These are the tools of statists.
Creating a sense of emergency is not anything that was done by the not side. It was the core developers not acknowledging valid criticism of blowing open the OP_RETURN field. That sort of "pipe down, plebs." created a sense of emergency.
I personally am an advocate for removing standardness of OP_RETURN and removing the witness discount as a way to let the free market decide on what is important on the blockchain.
Inscriptions would be full price and no plaintext data can be saved or relayed (unless submitted directly by a miner)
BIP110 is what happens when people with authority moderate valid opposition.
