OP_FALSE OP_IF and its variants are structure. if it wasnt a structure we would be able to filter it. we would had need machine learning to filter it. any IDE can detect unreachable code.
and BSV already did the exact same change. and we saw what happened. its not panic, if its real. also its not like people on the knots side doesnt make any technical arguments, there are many technical arguments made by knots side (its just there is also left side of the bell curve).
you can make technical arguments and also point out things like CSAM vulnerability at he same time. two things can exists and be true at the same time.
and CSAM is also a technically a valid concern based on history, what happened to BSV.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
The OP_FALSE OP_IF structure being detectable is a fair. If it’s identifiable as unreachable code, then filtering it is more technically objective than I was framing it.
What happened with BSV and CSAM? I’m not familiar with that specific case but would like to understand the precedent you’re citing.
I can accept that technical arguments and CSAM concerns can both be valid. My issue is specifically with the emergency framing and pool boycott tactics, not with raising CSAM as a legitimate risk factor in the debate.
If the technical argument is strong enough on its own merits and the BSV precedent demonstrates real consequences, then the case should stand without the NOW NOW NOW urgency that bypasses careful consideration