No thanks.

Why on primal? View article →

From “we don’t know what we’re doing” to “we don’t know what we did” Restoring the blocksize to 1MB maximum and removing the SegWit discounting of arbitrary bits is the fastest way to a resolution of spam and the most conservative approach. A full SegWit block16x’d the memory surface written per block of time vs the memory surface Satoshi defined at 1MB where 1 bit paid = 1 bit written. Nodes are storing up to 4x memory for 1/4 the cost. If you care about spam, price the fucking bits on your node correctly. “We don’t know what we’re doing”. Damn straight. 9 years of madness and counting. This is the only neutral objective path. A reduction in blocksize is a reduction in “spam”. I thought we “won” the blocksize war? Why did the blocksize change? Why 4MB? Why 1/4 discount? 1 bit ≠ 1 bit. We’ve depegged the bit from the coin. The only sane answer to all of this is objective neutrality. 1 bit paid MUST EQUAL 1 bit written. There is no free lunch. We need a Bitcoin Reversion Proposal. This is not the chain Satoshi gave us. The answer isn’t left or right, it’s back; back to the original economics. Back to the original chain. 21M/1 MB/1 Block View quoted note →

You confuse the conviction of pro BIP110 people with overconfidence. It's extremely disappointing to see that. BIP110 is a soft fork in the name only. It just fixes/mitigates all the fuck up shitcoin core have done over the years to damage the monetary property of the bitcoin. The more you talk about BIP110 the more respect I lose for you. I hope you don't become Giacomo 2.0 in the coming days/months.

It seem you need more information. Here.

It seem you need more information. Here. View quoted note →

This is a cop out Jimmy. You were onto the issue since early 2023 through back channels. You know more than most on this topic. I get that you don’t want the extra heat from any side, but you’re just not honest about this.

@jimmysong 🤔 @Luke Dashjr 🎯 @ODELL @calle 🤷🏻‍♂️ @Shinobi shitnobi @Jameson Lopp slopp @Matt Corallo carallo @npub1wqlz...rnrp fofo cc @hodlonaut @knutsvanholm @Luke de Wolf @Matthew Kratter

Yes, that post by Jimmy was quite faithless

Your claim is that you don't claim to know. That is an honest position. But as an "influencer," to speak on the topic at all, you have a responsibility to stay in the "I don't know" position, but then present the arguments so your listener can understand the problem, the proposed solutions, and whether the proposed solutions addresses the underlying problem and what the side-effects are. To declare that both sides, regardless if they are right or wrong, are presenting false confidence is to contribute to the drama. By not doing your journalistic job, and to revert into a columnist role, is to insinuate doing nothing is better than picking a side, which is to say the problem does not exist.

This is no time for neutrality. We have blocks filled with spam. It can easily get worse if we do nothing. We don’t need the spam. Run bip110

“Why I am a coward”

@jimmysong recently made a careful argument about BIP110: Bitcoin is a dynamic system, and you can't know a soft fork's consequences in advance. "I don't know the consequences," he wrote, "and neither do you." He's right about the uncertainty and the limits of prediction. But there's a third option worth considering. The choice isn't only between *knowing* an outcome (hubris) and *not knowing* it (watch and learn). For one specific question, will a contested fork succeed, fail, or split the chain? deep uncertainty doesn't mean zero information. You can't predict a dynamic system's full trajectory. But you can bound it. You can map which conditions push a contested fork toward a clean win, which push it toward a sustained split, and where the boundary between them sits. That's what simulation is for. We ran 2,694 contested-fork scenarios on real bitcoind nodes using Warnet with mining pools, exchanges, and users modeled as the actors BCAP (https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap) defines, each making independent economic decisions to map exactly that boundary. We don't claim to know whether BIP110 should activate. We claim something narrower: the success-or-failure of a contested fork isn't pure fog. It has structure, and that structure is measurable in advance. Full methodology and findings at the University of Wyoming Bitcoin Research Institute workshop @Bradley Rettler , July 13–17. Thread to follow.

GitHub

GitHub - pfoytik/Bitcoin-Fork-Governance-Study: Research studying measurable way to quantify threshold values of participating entities during contentious soft forks

Research studying measurable way to quantify threshold values of participating entities during contentious soft forks - pfoytik/Bitcoin-Fork-Govern...

Epistemic humility and quantitative analysis aren't opposites. You can hold both. View quoted note →