Since a fair amount of people on the Internet seem to have below average reading comprehension, here's the gist of Luke's softfork, in the author's own words.
First, to all the apologists claiming that Dashjr has nothing to do with this softfork, he’s literally credited as the original author of the proposal in the BIP, and has publicly stated that he assigned the BIP number.
Second, the softfork proposal is literally *intended* to cause a chain split by the author’s own description with the retroactive activation, describing it as “an important part of its purpose: to keep the illegal content storage out of Bitcoin.”
Third, while the softfork is described as temporary, both the author and Dashjr prodigee Bitcoin Mechanic state that if the fork is activated, there is likely consensus to prolong the fork, which would necessitate ***any other update to Bitcoin to be a hardfork*** because ***the proposal removes most softfork update hooks***.
Lastly, the author uses the notion of legal threats to node operators to coerce activation, stating that “this BIP specifically targets forms of spam that are so legally toxic that having even a single instance in the chain represents a significant legal liability for users who run nodes”.
This notion has been publicly endorsed by Dashjr, who claims that “a counter-fork to reject BIP 444 would mean explicitly protecting and enforcing the distribution of child p**n.”
Note that none of this is even getting into the coin confiscation risks which we touch on in the article, the incentives for a 51% attack, or the fact that arbitrary data can *still* be stored on Bitcoin even with the softfork, which other people have raised in response.
Anyone who writes that ***”there is no time for careful deployment”*** when wanting to push an upgrade to software that secures a Trillion Dollar asset cannot honestly be taken seriously.
Any Knots apologist responding to this post will be called a liar.
Fork your mother if you want to fork.
View quoted note →
