Thread

I wish Luke and co weren’t going off the deep end with the forking narrative. There is market demand for neutral competitor, as Core is full of politics, butthurts, and people who think we can expand the supply cap or add tail emissions and Knots has Luke arguing for freezing coins that he would have filtered, forking when not popular, and general catastrophizing. If there were many largely adopted implementations then consensus would have to be more collaborative and peaceful as opposed to resorting to ostracization, name calling, and vilification. It’s all so tiresome

Its actually simple. Bitcoin is Freedom Money. Not a spam dump for shitcoiners like Citrea and other scammers who try to turn it into ETH v2. BIP 110 actually works in consensus, collaborative and peaceful way taking many different view points. No money will be frozen. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017 Bitcoin Knots is free to choose for people who consider Bitcoin a Freedom Money. Yes there is the tension and name calling between both camps but if you don't like it try to avoid. Consensus would be peaceful if Core were able to discuss it good faith. They couldn't. They censored people just for mentioning Citrea on Github and they pushed highly controversial change. Then we saw the root cause and their past actions and eveyrhing became clear that majority of them are compromised. I don't like the situation either but I won't let liars and manipulators to degrade Bitcoin and brainwash the masses. nostr:nevent1qqs8kvadycyeashtz50uss46hvrvxlwgc49a0nczlfugr7qn4pg9lpqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wshsyngpdd nostr:nevent1qqsdzljat0chywt6j8vaahenra5gl3kgdlywdgr5tzvgr6m7w7kxz7gppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wshs2kz3kh

I’ll trust you for now on what 110 is. I heard 444 would have frozen existing “spam” coins for a year. All for less spam and non monetary uses, but radical ways of pruning existing coins and limiting spendability would be a major step too far. We cant start retroactively kneecapping existing utxos we don’t like as that could be more harmful to the network than utxo bloat. If this just puts in filters, that’s fine

This is the source and explicitly outlines "Is there any risk of funds being frozen or lost?" https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/files?short_path=47c8e9a#diff-47c8e9acbd5c27c90120ebfd3765481b9ca47b3f2e74f4d7e674993937d6c490 Most of the technical discussion is here https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/7U8YuMopR73k4XRYBA8DjhaGLJkyKPuXpxW9p7vmH45JHEyIj_oE_t4xk99hrNdvMGghpmooAMXOmWGaZ4UkwHPndzrpzIL0SX2SoTf0l3w=@proton.me/T/#m84a4f2f5ec4dc33be92b9030039b0025d77f56d1 and explanations are int he BIP 110 on Github. (110 and 444 are the same thing but instead of 444 the soft fork got number 110 assigned from Core)