it is way too aggressive on restricting taproot, considering inscriptions will still be possible after, if the goal was actually achieving consensus then it probably should just be a cap on op return
the flag day activation, without anywhere near consensus, is reckless and will cause a chain split, would be safer as a hard fork
lot of talk of node counts and the power of node runners, but in practice this is exactly what a centralized mining attack would look like, whichever way the hash goes at activation all non updated nodes follow
for instance, if blackrock and mstr and foundry want to freeze coin in the future, it would probably look like bip110
my default stance on any protocol changes is always no
Login to reply
Replies (3)
What about segwit?
Probably be a cap on Op_Return… like the fucking Cap we had the ENTIRE time. You’re full of shit man. Centralized mining has been a huge problem for a while now. But where was the complaint about attacks on Bitcoin then ? Where was that VC money the ? You lost the plot. Your family lives on Fiat VC money. The attack you mention is already possible. Your arguments make ZERO sense. You fucked us !
Well this is a soft fork like segwit so you don’t have to update your node.
It will continue to work fine with the new consensus.
And even if the “restriction on taproot” is somehow bad- the rules will revert in 1 year.
The only risk here is that VC wall st suits scare enough people into doing a URSF and splitting the chain. Don’t be that guy.
If you are so concerned about miners then you should be shilling ocean 24/7
Anyway, there is already enough consensus already and the miner incentive is to activate smoothly mid august.