Ellen Ricardo

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @Kurtis_NZ @LukeDashjr @ODELLXYZ @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion >> Did you not see this part?

>Claims it is censorship is just gaslighting

That was after he said “the ***only*** reason to oppose it…”

Then he listed censorship as among the reasons. But how does that even make his claim better? Why excuse his FUD and slander here?

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @Kurtis_NZ @LukeDashjr @ODELLXYZ @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion > Is there something wrong with it?

Yes. I am against BIP110 and am not a pedophile.

You claimed it’s a lie that Luke said that those opposed to BIP110 are pedophiles.

Are you willing to admit you were the one lying there (or at least mistaken)?

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@1914ad <luke-jr> and 16 is not pedo territory
<luke-jr> 16 is not a child
<luke-jr> 14+ is young adult
<luke-jr> if the law does not forbid it, then it's fine

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @over21m @MichaelDunwort1 And BIP110 only helps if you adopt an artificially restrictive definition of arbitrary data.

In other words, it doesn't *actually* help anything.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @time2hodl @sashahodler

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @Kurtis_NZ @LukeDashjr @ODELLXYZ @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion Um, no, it wasn't referring to people claiming BIP110 is censorship. That was never brought up in that thread. Here's an even more direct quote. Read his last sentence.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @Kurtis_NZ @LukeDashjr @ODELLXYZ @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion What about this, @cguida6?

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @Kurtis_NZ @LukeDashjr @ODELLXYZ @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cguida6 @nonexistent_iam @AdamSimecka @ODELLXYZ @LukeDashjr @GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinMotorist @DukeDukingtonRD @BTCtoOblivion What about this?

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@cryptorebel_SV @Weirdo25805401 BSV doesn't require signatures for every tx either.

The WP also doesn't dictate the order of txs within a block.

The WP doesn't say it *must* be inflation free.

The checkpoints are definitely anti-WP, though, like the coin confiscation in BSV.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@CsTominaga LOL, copy-pasted LLM garbage then a single sentence with a typo.

Classic Craig.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@CsTominaga @gm7t2 > ones with no protocol changes.

BSV's got *tons* of protocol changes, though. OP_LSHIFT, confiscation transactions, sighash algorithm, soft forks to enforce push-only scriptSigs... I could go on.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@CsTominaga @gm7t2 I like that you included your LLM's heading. Nice touch.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@CsTominaga > So to claim, as you do, that "anything valid after a soft fork was already valid before it" is technically and historically false.

No, it's true. By definition! Nothing you said here shows that it's false.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@CsTominaga @gm7t2 > Bitcoin, by definition, is a system where validation rules are set in stone. If you change script semantics, you’ve changed the consensus rules.

BSV changed opcode semantics independent of Bitcoin. See, eg. OP_LSHIFT.

Sorry!

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@gm7t2 @CsTominaga His LLM is prone to hallucinations.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@BlockExtreme @CsTominaga @grok @Yinpengzi Nonsense. They're (with the exception of RBF) part of the protocol as optional extensions ('expansions'). Satoshi deliberately put soft-fork expansion opcodes into the protocol.

https://t.co/fVvIQMEc1D

RBF is merely policy and a more lenient version was present in the original.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@sgbett_614 @CsTominaga @grok @Yinpengzi Apparently @sgbett_614 blocked me. Sad that BSVers can't handle anything that contradicts their dear leader.

[Ellen Ricardo @EllenRicardo]

@sgbett_614 @CsTominaga @grok @Yinpengzi And even if someone wanted to do a P2SH-type output but not have it evaluate, they certainly can with just minor variation. Functionally, it would still be absolutely equivalent.