Consensus is the protocol. A fork without supermajority support isn't an upgrade — it's a secession. Bitcoin's value proposition IS resistance to minority capture.

Fuck around and find out.

Good morning 😁

tell the core, they push code forks without consensus cc @knutsvanholm @Luke de Wolf @Unhosted Marcellus @hodlonaut @Matthew Kratter bcc mr slopp, mr carallo, mr satoddshi, mr andy, mr shitnobi

Minority soft fork having full consensus is an oxymoron.

Question is how much Luke coins will be worth. Fwiw, I'll probably keep them anyways forever. Unlike ecash, which will get dumped asap.

fine by me anyone can fork without permission

What’s your rationale for keeping it?

Because it won't be worth the time it takes to send my Bitcoin back and fourth to separate funds cleanly. I mean I don't think the fork coin will be worth anything anyways. Might as well keep it. Unless it has a price of like 10k per coin minimum. And if it does get that price through some crazy circumstance, I would consider selling half of it then and keeping half as a little keepsake reminder for myself.

i give this soft fork 2 days max before it falls apart. the only thing that really matters here is being extra careful if you try to dump the forked shitcoin after the chain split. if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing, you can lose all your real btc. read calle’s post. don’t get greedy chasing a few bucks and end up losing your entire stack. never ever enter your private key anywhere to claim a shitcoin. View quoted note →

Desperate Odell, my favorite Odell. Fear, only fear.

And I'm building tools to profit off of it

Gm

GM ODELL🫂

your words bounce off me like ping pong balls

that was a sneaky thing to do. We had a calm bitcoin paper summer. Time for some action and rage quits

Airdrop incoming

Calling 55% a minority means you can't math.

Love and respect Odell, - and pro #Bip110…

Yes, yes. Let’s move on with the fork.

Morning chap 👋

If Core is a respectable entity, makes sense to have a sound plan to timely merge BIP-110 just in case, don't you think?

Retarded

Don't let the tardos push you to a sabbatical. Keep fighting them.

View quoted note →

The most perfectly worded bait.

Speaking as someone who wasn’t around in 2017: wasn’t the TLDR of The Blocksize War something like “whichever alternative facilitates decentralization through making running nodes more affordable” is the winner? Genuine question

pretty sure yall are well short of 55% constant personal attacks definitely did not help reach broader consensus impossible to no for sure pre fork anyone can fork without permission we will find out in a month

totally bruh, and that's, like, to say nothing of your opportunistic avoidance of the fucking issue until you realized it was unaviodable. At which point you made a whole cast chock full of obtuse personal attacks...

Imgflip

Imgflip

They will lose their grants then.

🫡

nope, opensats funds known bip110 supporters also we dont tell people what to work on

We will find out in a few weeks, then we can revisit.

here is the long version

All the grifters came back to Nostr today to promote the pedocoin version of the fork. Hey, node runners don't want to host your csam, put that disgusting shit on a different chain.

But King Luke said that was a lie? Even though the company he’s CTO at is preparing for a chain split?

Like who?

I wasn't even thinking about bip110 as I thought that it was such a negligible minority that nothing would have happened. But seeing lately so many posts from "anti bip110" makes me think that it actually is not such a negligible minority after all....I don't understand, I guess let's see what happens in August For the record: running knots but against bip110

The chain split only happens if miners reject BIP-110. Other than maybe Marathon who specifically mines spam via Slipstream, miners have very little revenue to lose by adopting BIP-110, so they should adopt it because it’s a small step in the right long-term direction for Bitcoin that sends an immediate message that spam is not welcome. What specific rule change in BIP-110 are you against and why?

Seems kinda irrelevant. If most miners flip the bit at the last minute there is no chain split. If most miners don’t flip the bit, then Oceans mining pool for the BIP-110 chain is dead on arrival. I just can’t see a lot of people forking off like the Bitcoin cash crowd. I think it’s more likely that the BIP-110 supporters regroup and try another approach to mitigating spam.

This has more wisdom than ~“BIP110 and Ocean are attacks that give Luke and Mechanic control”. Claims for which I’m still earnestly waiting on even a modicum of elaboration from Matt and Calle.

knots as a software project is luke as a benevolent dictator that seems pretty obvious to me, whether you think that is a good or bad thing, subjective

So, you're saying your initial post is moot?

What ?!? 😂🤷‍♂️😅😂

Compromised and corrupted Core are attacking Bitcoin and facilitate shitcoins. Luke and Bitcoin Knots defend Bitcoin as Freedom Money and that is shown throughout Luke's code contributions history.

For now I’d rather take the chance on Luke instead of continuing with people whose postmodernist, leftist ideology destroyed Core, just like it destroyed once great cities like SF, NYC, and the entire state of California. Even more implementations will keep everyone in check.

i support more implementations, just not bip110 i dont trust core or luke, simple

I don’t trust Core or Luke long-term either. So alternative node implementations are super important. My perspective differs to yours in that I’m ok with Knots/BIP-110 for now (after painfully reviewing the Knots code that is annoyingly more different to Core than it needs to be) and can move elsewhere in a year based on what the best option is then. Worst case - I modify Core myself and run that. I decided not to sit on an old version of Core because the spammers keep spamming and bypassing the nodes, so when the v30 change sent a social signal that spam is welcome on Bitcoin, I decided it was time for true Bitcoiners to fight back. Since spammers bypass nodes, we need to start periodically tightening consensus rules to mitigate spam and send an immediate message to their VC backers that spam isn’t welcome. BIP-110 is far from perfect - ordinals already have a change that makes them BIP-110 compliant. That’s not the point. It’s to make spammers unwelcome, periodically disrupt their approach with tighter consensus rules and eventually reach a sweet spot where financial use cases and innovation are still supported, but spamming is so inconvenient that most spammers go elsewhere. I’ve been listening to Rabbit Hole Recap for many years now and appreciate the info you and Marty have shared with the plebs. I hope that in the next few episodes you find a way to move to a more pragmatic stance where Bitcoiners can all get along, flip the bit to avoid any chain split and find a better long term solution than relying on Luke.

You are still directing people towards the latest version of the compromised and corrupted Core.

I want you to know I got your DMs and really appreciate the connection. Can't respond due to relay challenges. Thanks for the support and being a voice on the right side of history. Keep it up. 💚🙏