Thread

Thank you !

I believe there is no compelling reason to remove the 'Reactive' softfork deployment method on the pretense of building consensus. Quite the opposite, the existence of the 'Reactive' option acts as an additional lever, actually leading to greater consensus.

Excellent.

I think the same. Stop making compromises with clearly bad actors.

Thanks nostr:nprofile1qqsw3p5pela795rxxff34kgfafsaawhnkqp8ehmgm2my49dgx9fjclcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuempwd6x2ct6dyhxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueq9npjah 🫡 I still think the reactive method shouldn’t be removed from the BIP. It’s a fallback if plan A fails, and I get the sense it’s the one that unsettles the bad actors the most. nostr:nevent1qqsykd7h7pke9rm567gamca0uh9qjds5u4lc996qrrhz0a08z790m5spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgevv2td

Thanks so much. You are not set up to receive zaps.

Perhaps he compromise is not as much for the bad actors as it is for more of the middle? I dunno...

I dunno either. The problem with fixing decentralised protocols is that your solution can’t be perfect if you want to make it go through. I think that’s an attack vector on itself.

nevent1qqszcu3y9x929p5p8qtajyam6wtgzu8lsust2age8t0dlk4mzpxy5xszvwldc