Thread

This is where my technical ignance becomes an advantage🤔 Huh??!?😂 …now if they eventually hard fork I’ll ignantly keep both sets of coins…and thru blissful ignance have remained tru to my libertarian btc’er roots while clearly demonstrating my patriotism …it’s a win win😳😂👍🏽

Remember the 14 years when people celebrated how bitcoins legal status was grey (at best)

I’m here for separation of money and State. So, in short, “No”. That would be time for men to be courageous outlaws.

@ODELL View quoted note →

I’d say “Fork Off”

Good luck getting the rest of the world (outside their jurisdiction) to agree to those terms

Eww, no

Fedjacketing is fed behavior.

Great question, and it's a conversation I'm not sure we're ready to have. View quoted note →

No, I wouldn't.

If I thought the fork was a net benefit then yes, regardless of who is proposing it. If not, then no. Of course, if its a government trying to force it then its almost certainly not good. However, if its a voluntary thing, where people can choose for themselves, then I'm all for that.

User Rejected Softfork is an as-of-yet misunderstood aspect of #Bitcoin Game Theory 🤔

Except that's not what's going on with BIP-444 🤷‍♂

Overruled. Speculation. Goes to arguments by both sides.

But they’re saving Bitcoin 😂😂

Depends if I agree the fork is better for Bitcoin or not. Period. Who wrote the software and what their legal opinions may be do not factor into my decision.

Then they wouldn't understand the basics of bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system. PEER TO PEER No government No bank No central authority They cannot declare something illegal that they have no access to. Now, go to your favourite coffeeshop and talk them into accepting bitcoin. 🟠

What would you do with your node if even one CP gets into opreturn? This is a sincere question.

Does the new node software change the fundamental use case of Bitcoin?

Nope. I would imagine any such shitcoiners would be rejected by the main economic actors since violating the fundamental usecase of bitcoin makes the network worthless.

What if it’s only “temporary,” though…? 😬

Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Imagine a government wants to attack Bitcoin. What could they do? They can compromised a number of developers. The developers could start slowly degrading Bitcoin. They could change the definition of Bitcoin being "digital currency that uses peer-to-peer technology" to just be a "peer-to-peer network". They could change the definition of the datacarriersize. Using that as argument they could deny fixing the inscriptions spam. Then they could use the inscriptions spam as an argument that spam is unstoppable so they better blow up OP_RETURN and invite even more spam. Just like BSV did after which someone uploaded CSAM to the BSV blockchain.

The point is that Bitcoin is money not data storage. Core 30 brings BS and we should do

F the DS.

This will happen. Then it is your choice to stay or go.

Obvious once you see it.

No, I would not. Now, let's do another thought experiment: Imagine the Core team decides to radically change bitcoin into a piece of software that openly states that it welcomes any non-monetary-transaction-content, legal or illegal, and will relay it. They decide to call it v30. Would you run v30? Is that the hill you choose?

🤔

**** This just in.. pedoland under 'pedo software' "crisis" **** The U.S. is the only UN member state that has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As of July 2025, child marriage is legal in 34 states.