Ignore the personal attacks Matt. Its true There's been no shortage of those from all sides. If I said something personally offensive to you I take it back. I honestly think you are not a bad apple. Or malicious. Its just that you are not showing your best in your engagement with this issue. I'm pointing to you a video that has ZERO insults or personal attacks. All I'm saying is deal WITH THE ARGUMENTS of the BIP stop engaging with strawmen.

Just actually comment on what the BIP does. You can combine it with all the personal attacks you want they just can't be *the entire substance of your complaint.* Do you disagree with the tradeoff of killing OP_IF in taproot given that it's basically only used for spam and making taproot the opposite of the scaling tech it's meant to be? Do you actually want OP_RETURNs to continue being consensus valid up to 1MB in size? Do you see a pressing need to activate another softfork (that isn't CTV) during the year BIP-110 prevents them? Is killing deeper-than-7 trees in taproot going to create some issues?

Many of us would like to hear more of your thoughts on the technical aspects of the BIP because we value your opinion and are trying to gather as many perspectives as possible. It will help people to make a more informed choice. Cheers Matt.

The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we each rely on. I am convinced that almost everyone in Bitcoin values your work. Thanks. However, after a long period of neutrality and silence, suddenly taking a clear side based on speculative arguments naturally triggers reactions. The reason we have different blockchains today is historically connected to Core’s stance against non-monetary transactions. That is a fact. And that stance has clearly shifted. The data that ends up on the blockchain is a direct consequence of the current rules. Bitcoin is meant to be a payment network. If the current state of the blockchain no longer reflects that, then the rules need to be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted. Instead of personal attacks, the technical arguments should be discussed. If both sides clearly state what they disagree with on a technical level, compromises and durable solutions can be developed. Especially if the goal is the same. That is exactly what I hardly see from Core and why i oppose it. Why, after such a long time, has no serious compromise even been visibly explored? If concerns are widely expressed and there is still no sign of meaningful reconsideration, it does not look like an open process. It looks like a predetermined direction being pushed through.

It's all so tiresome. The fact that the most heated tirades against the BIP don't actually touch the technicals is telling

Sounds like a roadmap, doesn't it?

Sounds like a perfect Bitcoin Mechanic analogy 😂

Hey @ODELL I’m genuinely open to being proven wrong and say I’m sorry. If you’re willing to publish a detailed, substantive response video that meaningfully addresses the technical aspects (similar in depth and seriousness to what @Matthew Kratter did) of course. Furthermore, if you ever decide to publicly support BIP-110, I will record a public apology video mentioning you and donate 100k sats to a pro bono Bitcoin cause of your choice. I’m aware that 100k sats might seem like a laughable amount to you given the scale at which you operate, but it’s not a small amount to me. And I would do it in a heartbeat - without hesitation.

🦗🦗🦗

He won't reply to this. Just like back in the day, him talking shit an Saylor, then softball interviews him during the Nashville Shitcoin magazine conference.

I'm still trying to understand the reason why @ODELL @Matthew Kratter haven't done a debate yet. Like grown men talk and have a genuine conversation

They don’t need one. It’s time consuming. Just take time and answer to Matthew’s video. It’s quite simple. Should help.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a part of the lynch mob. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID 😂

🦗🦗🦗

Want OP_RETURN to continue to be consensus valid. Miners running reasonable defaults should not be punished.

I love how @ODELL responds to the most vitriolic, rage bait posts yet REFUSES to respond to anything intelligent and then acts like this. There are people that respect your opinion and want to hear your technical refutation of bip110 and for whatever reason you just don’t say anything of substance. Like dude, I want to respect you, but you’re acting like a coward. I know “personal attack” but if it quacks like a duck…might be a duck View quoted note →

There’s a difference between having a bad character, like an @ODELL , and ad hominem. @ODELL, what’s your position re Core v30 again?

One thing that strikes me about the current BIP110 debate is how much the social dynamics remind me of COVID. Not because the subject matter is the same, but because the pattern feels familiar. You have a large number of recognised experts, influencers and institutions all pushing the same narrative. You have legitimate concerns and counterarguments that often go unanswered. And you have people raising those concerns being characterised as troublemakers, extremists, attackers or simply not understanding the issue. During COVID, many people weren't asking for blind trust in alternative views. They were simply asking for open debate, transparency and the right to question the prevailing narrative. Whether you agreed with them or not, questioning authority became enough to attract criticism. I see some of the same frustrations emerging here.For many of us, the issue isn't whether a particular developer, company or influencer is good or bad. The issue is that Bitcoin was designed specifically so that nobody's authority should be enough. Arguments should stand or fall on their merits. When concerns about incentives, funding, governance, adoption, miner behaviour or Bitcoin's use as money are raised, they should be addressed directly rather than dismissed because of who is asking them. That's why I respect the people who continue asking difficult questions. Not because they're necessarily right about everything, but because Bitcoin depends on open scrutiny and healthy skepticism. The answer isn't insults, tribalism or hero worship. The answer is to run a node, study the proposals, support decentralisation, verify claims for yourself and participate in the process.Bitcoin doesn't need followers. It needs sovereign individuals. If the debate around BIP110 has achieved anything positive, it's that more people are looking behind the curtain and asking how Bitcoin development is funded, how influence is exercised and whether the incentives still align with Bitcoin's original purpose. Those are questions worth asking, regardless of where you stand on the proposal.

Its a good observation. Its the same pattern: Self proclaimed authorities imposing its views and labeling dissent as plebslop, technically ignorants etc.