The only way to attack Bitcoin is to slowly degrade the network by using it to store arbitrary data on the people’s nodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3AYCZo7oEs Forcing the nodes to store CSAM will be a definite blow to decentralization and to Bitcoin.https://bip110.org/ is about stopping this degradation process.
What's so bad about owning nothing and being happy?
>>538979382Ask Kikes they are the ones who want to own everything is Goyim will be happy having nothing
https://jmail.world/thread/EFTA01928856
The case that it protects neutrality. Here's the counter, and it's strong. The ledger's neutrality was never "anything goes." Bitcoin has always had consensus limits that reject technically payable transactions: block size limits, script size limits, signature operation limits, the 520-byte push limits that already exists. Nobody calls those censorship. They’re resource constraints that keep validation cheap, and cheap validation is what keeps the node network broad, and a broad node network is what makes neutrality enforceable. Neutrality isn’t a property of the rules alone, it's a property of thousands of independent parties being able to verify the rules. If data storage bloats the chain until only datacenters run nodes, you keep the average of a neutral ledger while losing the decentralization that made its neutrality mean anything. On this view, BIP110 isn't Bitcoin becoming opinionated about content, it's Bitcoin defending the precondition for its own neutrality. The ledger stays blind to who pays whom and why, which is the neutrality that matters for money. It just refuses to be a hard drive.
BIP110 modifies 10 lines of existing consensus code, and adds 74 more lines. It is trivial to review and obviously correct.If we ignore the softfork activation logic, the actual rules themselves amount to 7 modified lines and 37 new lines.Everything else is documentation, tests, ensuring users consent at startup, and p2p logic.
Some #BIP110 opponents are bad actors, others are just uninformed. We need many pleb node runner/miners, building their block templates, not government-regulated pools that’ll blacklist UTXOs & attack the network the moment they’re told. Look at what’s happening vs. what should.
>>538981929the trouble is validation isn't cheapchinese government and (((american))) corporations created a monopoly on mining and forced the validation price through the roof, narrowing the network and ensuring bitcoin became just another monopolyit's nothing compared to what it could've been but it was flawed from the start
>>538985787That's the reason why BIP110 resistance is so important. Monopoly on mining is not a real issue if Plebs/Goyim still have a voice on Bitcoin development and so far it's very clear that majority of BTC nodes support BIP110
>>538985787The thing I like best about BIP110 is that it sets sensible limits on development. New features will have to prove themselves, not have massive explore space to experiment. We have testnet for that. I really do believe Bitcoin becomes more secure through BIP110 activating.Taproot and Segwit both provided ways to upgrade and make development exploration either. Segwit has upgrade hooks which I understand to be ways to do future upgrades as soft forks. Taproot has the annex.The rationale I've heard for these things is that we don't know what Bitcoin will need, and so there was a bit of a guess that these features would be useful to make development easier.My general pushback is that 99%+ people just want self custody and to be able to pay for things. A lot of development is developing for a hypothetical future without having real demand.I'm not saying don't do development, just that making the base layer protocol more flexible has lead to some security issues, and could lead to more in the future. I lean conservative. Therefore: make new features prove their value.
That's not the only attack. Epstein could also fund a chain split and force the entire Orthodox bitcoin community out.
>>538979343What BTC does right, 21 million hard cap.Payment rails and I situational adoption and the ability for governance strucured around Central point of value.Why break something?Its structure is working does it really need sassy gif of niggers all over the blockchain?
>>538988866If this greedy miner niggas reject BIP110 from Plebs who run the nodes, that would mean they fully control the Bitcoin development, hence theoretically they could also change the 21M cap in the futureIt looks like Epstein clients are failing promoting Eth as a successor of Btc, so they need to take over Bitcoin by force and destroy it from inside.
