@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 I think it really comes down to both sides agree on the issue. Just not the severity. Removing spam would be great. Forcing a soft fork to do it I’m not ok with. Calling names as Luke has, not ok. Changing the PoW algo, not ok.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 So some guy wants to upload CSAM to every node around the world. Great. He now just put a target on his address to find him. The dark web is a much cheaper and easier place to hide then the bitcoin block chain.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 Doesn’t seem like it will continue. Seems like a fad to me. Bored apes aren’t worth shit and I don’t think they are coming back. CSAM I also think is overblown. No one is doing it yet. And why would they. It’s an open block chain. Sure you can by semi anonymous but it’s not easy
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 There was some vocal opposition to core 30 but I think Theo said of spam is just seen differently. Plenty see it as an issue that over time the market prices out. That’s where I’m at. Blocks aren’t full. .5 days per VByte is cheap and spam is low.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 I am not a Simon Dixon fan but I think his write up was good. He spoke of attack out side the walls, at the walls or inside the citadel. 110 was outside the walls so many didn’t care. If the attack was inside the citadel (21m cap) we all care.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 Bitcoin isn’t captured. Bitcoin isn’t suit coin. Bitcoin doesn’t care and that’s the best part. The reason Samson would say fork off is because we know on this side what 110 does has no effect on the chain. Tick tock next block.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 It didn’t split the chain. That’s the difference. I don’t have to upgrade to 30. I don’t store “others files”. And Bitcoin just keeps going according to my node. Clearly 110 did try to change Bitcoin. The chain split.
I also don’t feel Bitcoin has changed.
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 You can be anti spam and anti 110. That’s a position few in the 110 crowd would accept as valid. I also think moving forward changes in Bitcoin will be very hard. Consensus with a larger group is just harder. Core 30 made a change with out consensus but
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 It had a massive echo chamber. If you were in it you believed EVERYONE was on your side. Reality is 110 made up 2-5% of the network. How would it be consensus if Bitcoin allowed 2-5% to make changes to the network?
@BTCfixesMoney@edprospero23 Do you spend Bitcoin? I’m guessing you save in bitcoin (or did). Node runners are enforcing the rules they find important. Miners aren’t without power but that doesn’t mean they have all the power.
110 had no support. No weight.
@djsenior13 Ever think they is why now everyone is so reluctant to change anything. Taproot was suppose to be good but the bug wasn’t seen. Now forcing 110 through people are rightfully worried about what may happen they didn’t see coming.
@DudeJLebowski Who has captured core? Are they in the room with you now? How is Bitcoin captured, in essence?
How did 110 having little support show you the rest of the network is not decentralised?
I’m fascinated by the views of 110ers as I just don’t see the problems they say are here
@MrStevenSats@edprospero23 I love how they think bitcoin is captured because 5% of nodes couldn’t force their will. Heaven forbid they actually look at the proposal and see the flaws.