Everyone needs to stop pretending forks are bad.

Forks aren't by necessity bad. A committee with the authority to roll back the chain over transactions they don't like is unacceptable shitcoin BS.

You're the only source I've heard claiming they want such a thing.

Really disappointed to hear that. Read BIP 444 for yourself. Written by Luke but submitted under a new nym and a new github account to mislead people. It creates a "soft fork" that grants them chain rollback power. They are lying about it being a soft fork. If they never rollback no point activating it. If they do rollback it is a hard fork from the people who don't, no way around that.

I read it. I didn't think that's what it said.

"If, however, some content appears in the chain that causes significant risks, we can fall back to the reactive method, which is a retroactive chain reorganization to invalidate the offending block (and any subsequent blocks) while immediately activating the new rules." From

GitHub

BIP 110: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork by dathonohm · Pull Request #2017 · bitcoin/bips

Mailing list thread at https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8 Editor note: please post conceptual feedback and meta-commentary on th...

Okay I guess I didn't think about it enough

Liars always hope you don't. Remember IBIT and other proxy Bitcoin always has the contract terms that they hold the right to pick for you in a hard fork. No picking yourself and doubling up like self custody.

A fork also complicates and breaks some things with lightning. I'm guessing a lot of node runners who are advocating for Bitcoin Cashjr haven't considered this part yet. View article →

We should really promote this point. People don't want to miss out on potentially a lot more bitcoin, but they probably don't know enough about bitcoin to know why it matters that the etfs hold the keys

Welllll actually, for me at least, I've counted that as a plus. I'm no expert on lightning, but I find it hard to believe it couldn't work without taproot.

I don't recall if I said you were spreading fake news, but if I did, sorry. But about Luke, there's another possibility... IMO, these big funds holding so much bitcoin is a problem. The state reeling it in and seducing bitcoiners with number go up is a problem. Bitcoin loses some part of its vitality and ethic if the state give approval. But Luke coin could fix all of this... If the funds and the state back a cucked version of bitcoin in a fork, we can cleanly cut them out. Or they cut themselves out. The possibility makes me positively cackle with glee.

I know I intend to sell ASAP on any fork caused by a rollback. We can't obey our way to freedom. Sad that freedoms have downsides but they are nothing like the downsides of voluntary obedience in advance at every turn.

I just want the spam minimized. The knots/core thing has become a diversion from the real issue - discouraging spam. Everyone keeps repeating obvious stuff, like you can't know what's spam and what's not. That's not helping solve the real issue. Data heavy transactions should be expensive. Maybe something really is worth inscribing - files to print a gun seem worth it. Maybe an MLK speech is worth it. But it should be expensive enough to make them think twice. Monkey jpegs solve no problems. And the correct price is surely vastly higher than a convenient transaction price, in indeed there's no way to prune without losing decentralization. Basically I'm just tired of the lack of solutions. Its boring, always reading the same stuff.

It can work but it is more private with taproot. Not the first time Luke's solutions are bad for privacy.

Taproot is a massive improvement for Lightning. Next we need covenants. The work on Core is not done.

Spammers have diamonds in their eyes due to the lies of scammers. Remember not to long ago they were paying 600s/vbyte in the bear market for some nonsense. Small price to pay compared to the promised gains that never happened. The best solutions are scam education combined with real world on chain use driving up demand for space.

Like the big blockers in 2017, their primary goal is precisely to eventually destroy Lightning. They, like in 2017, want to drive every transaction on-chain, because that's good for the big miners and for the government. The chain is easier to regulate, and it allows the miners to put on their best suit and meet with regulators in order to feel important. And big blocks pushes out the plebs. Perfect for Ocean Mining, and for Pope Luke to ban gambling and stop women from having money

The solution has been, and will continue to be, proof of work.

😴

The main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required - Satoshi