Sounds like C. W. all over again

Now way this is going to work

So why have we never heard from you a rational explanation as to why this update cannot address the same consequences as BSV?

@ODELL @Luke Dashjr I saw Luke’s reference to “may” be legal and moral consequences for consensually storing illicit material. I think that’s referencing the fact that authorities could potentially attack node runners consenting to this, not Luke’s personal legal team. Correct? How is that a threat and not just making people aware that they could be stepping into a hornet’s nest? Is there a threat I’m missing?

These people have been brainwashed by chicken little, bootlicking pussies like Matthew Kratter into believing that if we just close this one hole for illicit content the feds will leave us alone. It’s such a fucking cope. They call us CP supporters for disagreeing that filters and forks are a practical and cost effective method to defeat spam and objectionable material, even though they agree it will never be foolproof. We call that losing the plot. It’s just about saving face at this point. Pure hubris.

Why can’t everyone just chill View quoted note →

The basis of the legal issues are nonsensical but also this change doesn’t solve for them in any case. In the case of the reactive activation of this soft fork and chaotic chain reorganization: How am I supposed to trust that op return was used for large sized illegal content without viewing the illegal content. Suddenly you expect node operators to examine data and decode it to reveal illegal content? The very act of doing so making them far more legally liable than simply routing encoded data. And the alternative is that node operators have to simply trust me bro? I’m reject bitcoin cashjr and the insanity of this proposal.

- Soft fork with consensus could still result in a chainsplit (but maybe very short period of time) - Chainsplit created by soft fork is NOT meant to be permanent. - Nobody is talking about hard fork - Nobody is trying to PUSH this softfork with legal thereat. (Stop taking sentences out of the context and improve your reading comprehension skill) - On that note, feedback has been provided by @Bitcoin Mechanic to change the language Good job being CORECUCK

> if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail Justify claiming Luke is threatening anybody with legal action. Pointing out CSAM is a legal risk in general does not qualify.

Do you have inside info about legal threats?

BSV went to zero bc op return was changed to 100kb and cp was put on it.

Bitcoin is anarchy legal threats does fuck all

Luke seriously needs to fuck off.

Imagine this in all caps

Confucius has said this once already and he’ll say it again: Confucius say, Bitcoin dev who cannot manage keys to own stack shouldn’t manage direction of the protocol. https://www.theblock.co/post/287939/fbi-luke-dashjr-btc-hack View quoted note →

Yes one of the forks will go to zero. Probably the one with the illegal content on it!

A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain. The non-soft fork chain will be re-org'ed out of existence every time the soft fork chain becomes longer, because non-upgraded nodes will switch to it. If users/miners on the non-soft fork chain want to prevent this, they need to take action to reject the soft fork chain. Luke is right about that.

You're right.

Will most certainly fail

BSV went to zero because huge blocks, and refusal to implement the lightning fixes in Segwit, are how a smart person designs a blockchain