You don’t hate Core enough. View quoted note →

back to bip110 ? 🙏🏻

I knew that once he dived deep into the topic he’ll come around to BIP110. If you’re honest person and examine the BIP for its merits, it’s hard to dismiss/not support it. I believe @Giacomo Zucco has a good reason for not supporting it, but it’s not about the what the BIP does but how it activates.

it's very easy to not support BIP that is solving nothing

So I guess you failed the iq test, I’m sorry about that.

Delicious pleb slop! 😋

lol censorship? Explain to me how removing non monetary data is censorship? The only way it could be, is if you believe bitcoin should be data storage - which is insane. If that is really your view there are hundreds of shitcoins I could recommend you instead. A transaction is either monetary value from one peer to another or it is not. Core doesn’t get to decide what that line is… nodes do. That’s literally the premise of bip110. Core has accepted money from epstien, created a hierarchy, there is evidence they made changes to satisfy Citreas demands and now there are runes, a “btc stable coin” and even a fucking memecoin ($dog) on top of the Bitcoin network. No one is “censoring” anything. We are implementing a better system of nodes and users to create policy to stop non monetary data.

Who decides what counts as 'monetary'? That's the whole problem. Today it's inscriptions. Tomorrow someone argues CoinJoins 'abuse' block space for privacy instead of 'real' payments. Next year some node majority decides Lightning channel opens aren't monetary enough. Policy to stop 'non-monetary data' is just censorship with a vote. The line keeps moving until permissionless becomes permissioned.

you prefer sip citrus 🤣

🔥🔥

Turth is liberating and leads us to freedom but the Coretards shitcoiners who lie and manipulate hate it. Truth is revealing their scams.

"fake signatures" to inscript arbitrary data is obviously a "fake tx", obviously due a consensus flaw that compromise security, obviously too.

Not fake signatures. Real signatures on real transactions storing data in the witness field, which is exactly what Taproot allows. Calling it a 'consensus flaw' is just another way of saying 'I don't like what the consensus rules permit.' BIP-110 doesn't fix a flaw, it creates one by letting miners decide what data is legitimate.

... Says the majority stake holder of Citera.

Citrea is based.

Yeah zero conflicts of interest detected.

BRB, buying 500 Quadrillion Shares of Citrea stock with my Federal Reserve Bank Account to add another layer onto Bitcoin because Peanut Zaps are ok but we hate Citrea because ???

The framing is wrong and it matters. This has been debated to death and has been very clear for a long time. Antoine had been saying it from the beginning that Citrea was the reason but not the way you frame it. Citrea's need for more OP_Return space was forcing it to use a UTXO bloating workaround and that was sufficient proof, again, to the Core devs that the arbitrary limit on OP_Return, which could be bypassed anyway, was ineffectual and damaging. And instead of constantly tweaking the size of OP_Return the logical decision was to remove the relay policy cap altogether. It's not a conspiracy, it's all been explained and out in the open. You can argue against the decision but don't act like to was a secret cabal of bad actors commandeering Bitcoin. It wasn't and it isn't. Do better.