Thread

- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit - bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero - more people should use their own bitcoin node, they can run whatever software they want - if the desire is to try to push through a soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail

Not every soft fork leads to a chain split. While Taproot and Segwit have dissent, they haven’t resulted in a split. There’s a non-zero probability that CSAM on nodes can be outlawed, which can’t help adoption. While everyone can run their own node, not everyone is savvy enough to patch their bitcoin software, unless you make a highly customizable version.

every soft fork has had overwhelming consensus if one does not it will result in a chainsplit

Not necessarily. Chain splitting will only occur if the minority enforces new rules that the majority rejects. If the majority enforces the new rules, the minority can still use the old rules

Orphaning blocks the majority of miners recognize for its economic incentive will result in a chain split from the minority. The debate was over when over 50% of hash rate was in favor of higher OP_Returns. I do not see a world where this doesn't end with 2 chains. Tread the waters carefully because your PoW is stored on the chain that has the hashrate consensus.

Not really. One can run Core 29 and stay in consensus indefinitely, or at least until they stop supporting it

nobody can easily change bitcoin many want to control it the value is that they cannot

Core easily changed Bitcoin.

core did not change bitcoin the rules of the network literally did not change

Nope. Not true.

Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.

Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.

That’s not true to what was done. I understand we’ve all been fed a ton of different versions but this is fundamentally untrue.

Am I too dumb, or am I missing something? I thought that if the majority of people refuse to upgrade to #core30 or decide to run #knots, then the nodes will simply reject the those blocks with the core30 #OP_RETURN increased values as invalid / violarong the prior consensus, keeping the #bitcoin #timechain intact. Thus, if core devs want to still be relevant, they will kinda have to reverse the change. No need of a #softfork; no need of a #hardfork. #btc is freedom, and that means choice. The node-runners are free to choose.

The problem is that core30 adoption is growing quickly, increasing the risks of corrupting the BTC chain for all node runners.

But core30 trying to change Bitcoin network to data storage. Bitcoin is money!

I am using Clark Moody's dashboard (

Clark Moody Bitcoin

Dashboard

The entire Bitcoin economy at a glance

) where core30 is at 7.3%. Wow, that is fast adoption. Boy, was I wrong to assume that node-runners would choose not to upgrade. Let's hope that many would have manually configured the OP_RETUTN max value to the previous limit.

Nope. You're simply wrong. It did not change.

Aren't you a complete idiot? Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network. Cored devs - Bitcoin in 2021 is Money. Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.

- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit - bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero

Good parrot.

Whatever you said, Bitcoin is money and I will never allow anyone to dirty my money

Too late.

nope

Ordinals, inscriptions.

Only idiots like you continue with those fake news. But the spammers who exploit those weaknesses are actually scared from policy filters. Policy filters that work and kept OP_RETURN clean of data bigger than 82 Bytes.

No, it objectively is not a hard fork.