Or we make coloured coins great again. Without Vitialik.

The reason BIP110 failed is it was put on an arbitrary timeline, seeking to waste time and energy on a temporary solution when permanent was required, and sufficient buy-in from noderunners wasn’t sought and thus was never achieved (same problem the devs of all the open BIPs have) AMONGST MONETARY MAXIS. You lot don’t have some monopoly on those views and unironically you’re not going to remain a monetary maxi on BitcoinLE - you’ll just be the new Monerobros sniffing your own farts about how superior you are on your irrelevant fork. Just because you got it in your heads that this was the right solution at the right time, doesn’t mean it was the right solution or the right time and that has nothing to do with monetary maximalism, and everything to do with flawed strategy. Unfortunately good people threw themselves into this behind Luke’s Ego, I could easily have been one of them were I not so skeptical of him years ago. note19r5ag7r09cqp0v4zzzz7595pvg8fmtj5pk5cp086hg79n57y6lysdvzrk7 Before you go shitting on #Bitcoiners, before you go putting your life savings in the hands of Luke, please consider that maybe you were tactically wrong and that others who didn't follow you over this cliff saw the problem (I saw it long before you did), and want to fix it, but weren’t willing to drink this particular cup of koolaid. If you want to be a threat to the state, you will take this with comment with humility.

you can do both you know, things are not black or white

The reason BIP110 failed is that we naively believed consensus was supposed to be gathered out in the open, at the network level: nodes signal support or rejection, and miners follow based on the broader agreement. The broader agreement at the NETWORK LEVEL was 20% in favour, 80% abstaining, and 0% against. Then a bunch of suits lobbied behind closed doors and convinced a few large, regulated entities to ignore something that should have been accepted in the absence of any NETWORK-level objection. If that’s how consensus is going to be formed from now on, Bitcoin is a failed project. This has nothing to do with some tactical errors on our side, or with whatever arbitrary percentage of support someone decides is required before they can dismiss it as a Sybil attack. The rest of your post reads like you’re mildly offended by something I’ve said, and I’m not going to apologise for my opinion. You can keep calling us brainwashed by Luke or Monero-level retarded. We don’t care. To us, it’s obvious that Bitcoin-SHA256 is heading straight towards a cliff, and the brakes aren’t working anymore. So we’re doing the only sensible thing left: jumping out of the vehicle before it goes over the edge. Yeah, we’ll suffer serious injuries in the process. We didn’t want to do this. It sets us back years and puts us way behind. But we see no other choice. I respect that you’re willing to do something about spam. But simply talking about it isn’t changing anything. We acted, we got beaten, but we’re not abandoning the fight. What exactly are you going to fight for in this Poolcoin? And with whom at your side? The direction of development is clear now. The attackers are emboldened, and you have no technical means to beat them at their rigged fiat game. They can commit essentially unlimited amounts of money to bail out a few pools and shield them from any NETWORK-level attempt to bring them into line. If you have the numbers, they’ll call it a Sybil attack. If you have the support of businesses, they’ll call it a social attack. I take that lesson with humility. You still haven’t accepted how bad things actually are. I hope you do before it’s too late.

So what's the solution?

We had the solution for years. It’s just not a pretty one. We fire the miners, hire new ones with much lower difficulty, equip them with Datum from the start, keep the best of pooled mining without the centralising tradeoffs of the flawed Stratum V1.

Surely nodes are powerless?

It appears so. Mining is too centralised and easy to influence if you have the money and social weight. This was only a theoretical problem until it wasn’t.

How do we fire the miners? Do we go door to door Gestapo style or there is a more gentlemanly way of handling this? I really want to know, tongue in cheek humour aside

We change the PoW algo and fork. Miners’ hardware becomes useless on our side. We essentially bootstrap Bitcoin almost from zero, with just the nodes, making many of the nodes miners themselves.

Well the risk there is that alternative chain or fork could end up being like BCH but that aside how many nodes need to be on board with this to make this viable and a success given how bip110 didn't seem to make a dent

Depends on your metrics. If your metric is fiat price, yeah, ours could be 1% of what SHA256 currently has. But technically, our side will work toward improving Bitcoin’s monetary usefulness: less spam, greater decentralisation, and better guardrails against mining centralisation. On the social side, our community will be pulling in a single direction: Bitcoin as money. That culture will be reflected in the code we build. Whether the market eventually prices those differences accordingly remains to be seen. Time will tell.

This sounds like a huge risk that will definitely wipe out any fiat gains currently and that's why it's worth a shot and hopefully issues related to privacy can also be addressed

You will own the both sides of the split, so you can either sell one side for fiat or for the other side, or you can keep both. The UTXO set will be shared. Issues related to privacy can also be addressed, especially if no major exchange lists the new fork (currently I assume it won’t). This takes care of the third party and mandatory KYC problem because it pushes us towards p2p exchanges.

So when is this happening? 😁

Indeed! I have tried out BTC/xmr swaps and they work perfectly

Yeah, this is also being considered. 🙌

TBA, but probably beginning of September. Luke went on sabbatical to work on the client.