I would literally not care if bip110 was permanent, just to shut these people up, if we had drivechains FIRST. you do not need fancy taproot magic or even bitvm if there are drivechains. but it has to come FIRST because I won't accept any bait and switch. I saw what you fuckers did with segwit 2x. you fruitcakes are not going to get rid of the bitcoin users you don't like. we're not going anywhere. give us drivechains to play with and we promise not to besmirch your precious catholic timechain.

I dislike citrea for reasons that can only be gleaned from reading the documentation and having background knowledge on how rollups actually work. most people on here complain about citrea for made up reasons that don't match the documentation and don't make any sense rootstock as a drivechain is superior to the idea of citrea anyway

Bitcoin needs to be a fee revenue oriented project. Fee revenue is an extremely important KPI that should be tracked. Miners will get most of their compensation through fee revenue someday. If you want Bitcoin to exist in 20 years, that's what it will look like. I seriously can't envision a happy future where we still have excessively small blocks and they are filled with nothing but channel maintenance and Ark deposits. If there will be enough fee revenue coming from that, those channel maintenance transactions will be too expensive. It will create centralization. Only a small number of companies will do channel maintenance, and you will need permission to use their channels. Even if there is unilateral exit, even if we allow ourselves to believe that Spark and Ark count as self-custody, the fees will eat you alive. If it costs $80 to unilaterally unwind your VTXOs, any amount under $80 is effectively custodial. If fee revenue will all come from a tiny amount of high fee transactions, say goodbye to decentralization and freedom. You can tell yourself that decentralization is all about running a full node on a Raspberry Pi behind a dialup connection, but this doesn't cover the whole picture. Your cheap lazy node is just tossing people into hell. I don't see the market accepting any blockchain with really high fees per transaction. People have already learned not to use Bitcoin. If too many people use it, the fees spike. Some people find ways to not pay the miners, but most people switch to altcoins. This already happened. You cannot keep fee revenue up if the fee per transaction is too big. The market just doesn't want that at all. You can tell yourself that you did channel maintenance yesterday and it only cost a dollar, but that is like comparing the weather to the climate. It misses the point. This is unsustainable. I also don't think shunning features and functionality is a good way to attract users and developers. You need them to come if you want more fee revenue. If users cannot pay a miner for a feature, they will pay someone else for it and the miner won't get anything. You are limiting Bitcoin to only people who want to maintain a Lightning channel or shove more money into a centralized statechain. There are many more people who want to do many more things. Even Satoshi understood this, because he created expressive opcodes and he celebrated useful merge-mined sidechains like Namecoin. If you tell yourself, "tick tock next block," you can't see more than 10 minutes into the future. Premature ossification and shunning features will not help the fee revenue KPI. Opcodes and drivechains probably will.

Good soft fork, bad soft fork. Looking at soft forks that actually got activated. With the exception of SegWit, all of the soft forks either fixed a consensus failure bug or they added new functionality that wasn't there before. SegWit is different. It fixed a bug that made transaction IDs unreliable in applications, and it changed how transaction data may be handled. BIP-110 is different from all of these. It doesn't fix a consensus failure bug, it doesn't fix application or transaction reliability, and it doesn't add any new functionality. BIP-110 doesn't do any sort of thing that a previously activated soft fork did. BIP-110 tries to do some new things that have no precedent. It tries to prevent users and miners from voluntarily and purposefully doing something that doesn't create a consensus failure or unpredictable transaction behavior. BIP-110 is also temporary, and it's supposed to be part of a broader plan that we haven't even heard yet and may not exist. In light of this, it is extremely unlikely based on precedent that BIP-110 will get activated. Instead, a good soft fork should do at least one of the following: - Prevent a consensus failure bug - Ensure that when a user submits a transaction, it does what the user intended - Create new functionality that didn't exist before On the social layer, we have never had a soft fork activate after a hateful campaign of slandering its detractors as pedophiles or child porn apologists. Again, SegWit stands out a bit here. The people who pushed SegWit did in fact engage in some namecalling and slander, but it hardly escalated beyond mild slurs like "Keynesian." Do you want your soft fork to activate? Good. Here are some tips: - Be a lot more conservative about what actually counts as a bug, or not everyone will even believe you - Empower users, don't take power away from them - Attract and empower developers, don't punish them or scare them away - Exercise more discretion when dealing with people who have doubts, don't just call everyone who disagrees with you a pedophile If you see people trying to push BIPs in harmful ways, call them out. They are damaging the community and making people not want to work on Bitcoin. You wouldn't want my ETH and XMR bags to become more valuable, would you?

I'm not surprised that there's a man running around lying about what his code will accomplish, calling people pedophiles for not running it, and threatening a chain split. Luke does not surprise me. It's kind of reassuring that the project is so important, someone will try to damage it like that. What surprises me is that there are so many people who still respect him for acting like this. You should be able to tell when someone is mentally disturbed and unable to get along with others. He is a sick man and you are enabling him.

if "run my code or you're a pedophile" actually starts working, I hope more people will stop working on bitcoin. it shouldn't be worked on if it's going to be like that.

calling people horrible names until they run your soft fork is simply not something that happens in the ethereum, monero, or bitcoin cash communities. nobody in these communities will get away with trying such a thing. it's unacceptable behavior. it's not normal. there are now people in the bitcoin community, mostly luke dashjr and his groupies, who are trying to make this normal. every day you slide deeper into darkness and justify the existence of the altcoins. please stop larping about your nonexistent immune system.

he's changed the name of his BIP again, he's still doing the "liar" thing he's been doing for ten years, he's making outrageous and easily disproved statements like "this will make CSAM completely impossible," and nothing he is saying makes any sense. to a neurotypical person, this kind of behavior is extremely alarming. sane people in real life are not going to touch this. his groupies are undersocialized and don't understand the kinds of red flags he has.