I am not a new bitcoiner.
- I can acknowledge that BIP110 is unfortunate.
- I am certain that core needs a disciplinary response to an unforgivable way of handling the clearly controversial datacarriersize change.
- Running older version of core is not sustainable in the long run and implicitly proves distrust to the core anyway
- Considering BIP110 from a code standpoint - and not from the unfortunate "forced" nature of the softfork proposal - I dont recognize, (from a technical point of view) how BIP110 makes bitcoin WORSE money.
- I do however recognize how 100kb datacarriersize makes bitcoin worse money
- I dont care about programmable money enough that I would in any way jeopardize bitcoin as borinh actual money.
So - with no ad hominem attacks at all - and with a constructive attitude -
I can acknowledge that it's a SUPER tough debate with good arguments on both sides.
How do I neglect the non-negotiable fact that
1. I have built distrust to Core and thus
2. need to run SOMETHING else
3. I technically dont disagree with knots + bip110
4. Disagree with forcing a minority softfork because its dangerous to the credibility of the bitcoin experiment
Open to suggestions ๐
Login to reply
Replies (1)
The most sensical response in this entire thread and one of the best arguments in the entire Core vs Knots debate I have heard. ๐