@zardigrade@allocinitxyz no to both! but requires an op return limit to he increased to around 700 Bytes as the shield logic will be stored in OP RETURN and will take around 650 Bytes
Looks to me like Scamson really doesn’t want plebs who are holding L-BTC to be able to get out. Meanwhile there are rumors that some large holders are being allowed to swap their L-BTC for BTC. Absolutely vile if true
^ I stored this screenshot in my meme folder because it has some modicum of historical value, don't you agree? It proves several facts:
1. That BIP-110 opponents took it seriously and were afraid it would be adopted.
2. That Bitcoin mining is too centralized to the point that random nobodies can pressure the supermajority of the hashrate via Sv1 pool operators. Nevermind nation states!
3. That the BIP-148 UASF of 2017 was a psyop, UASFs/URSFs don't work and the "Independence Day" celebration of August 1st is a LARP. Sad, but at the same time it's good to see a lie through and stop believing in it.
@giacomozucco@radikalreems@Bullcrapwork Right. It's much safer and effective to backchannel directly with the big pools as Jonathan Bier has been bragging about doing successfully in 2017 and now also in 2026.
Adam's last timeline post is from September 2nd. It is about the Blake fork.
BIP-110 and the fork has been his favorite posting topic for a good while.
On September 2nd he found time to shill Tokenized Stock Notes on Liquid (Liquid was hacked yesterday for 4000 BTC) in a reply to Laura Shin.
He had plenty of time to once again make several reply posts about the Blake fork on September 3 and 4.
He still hasn't found time to mention the 4000 BTC hack of Liquid though.
Weird, considering he is the CEO of Blockstream, the company behind Elements, that minted Liquid coins that shouldn’t exist.
@Rory_D_Fpic Oh, so they were right when they said Core V30 was a real upgrade. I was too dumb to get it by that time… Now that’s a real usecase: Public chatting in btc network
@88_sats That's why Bitcoin still has a high market valuation. If people really knew it essentially does have a CEO, and a bunch of children working on the code as a centralized group, there would be a major selloff.
@Falahbrook@mattkratter We dont share the same beliefs, because mining pools coordination is indeed an important attack vector to bitcoin, with coordination meaning centralization, and nodes can’t do a thing against that…
I conclude that this will be an unfruitful debate.
I hope the best for all of us
@Falahbrook@mattkratter Your comparison of technically possible use cases doesn’t make any sense.
for you 1 in 3.4 × 10³⁸ is comparable to 5 mining pools coordinating?
@Falahbrook@mattkratter but that hypothesis is still valid isn’t it? What if it actually does happen (global miner coordination against their own economic incentives). How you counter that?