Appreciate you being a listener of the pod 🙏 I enjoyed the heck out of the convo with @jimmysong . Basically he does *not* think BIP 110 (or the urgency around it) is necessary, but he also thinks it’s better to have some fork drama now versus a few years from now. That way we can better understand the mechanics of how a USAF would actually work if nodes starting actively rejecting blocks, instead of just threatening to do so. I also appreciate Jimmy’s position that fees ultimately price out spam. I’ve always found Jimmy to be a very reasonable person and first-principles thinker. Plus he’s more respectful in his discourse than 99% of us in this space (myself included).
I also really enjoyed the SOV/MOE part of our conversation.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Thanks @walker, that's right. And thanks for your excellent podcast. What was most elucidating to the immediate discussion here was his perspective on ossification and architecting in layers.
Even though he didn't take a stand on the specific bip (and I'm not lighting myself on fire over it either) I do support it for precisely the underlying architectural reasons that @jimmysong explained so well.
Ive been doing software architecture for 25 years and can attest that the deeper point he made about maintaining protocol architecture, though subtle, is profoundly relevant to maintaining Bitcoin in general. I've been encouraging everyone to listen to it and hope many will be able to internalize and apply the wisdom in it as a meta.