Bitcoin Mechanic -- 60d [parent] [-]
|    Just actually comment on what the BIP does. You can combine it with all the personal attacks you want they just
|    can't be *the entire substance of your complaint.*
|    
|    Do you disagree with the tradeoff of killing OP_IF in taproot given that it's basically only used for spam and
|    making taproot the opposite of the scaling tech it's meant to be?
|    Do you actually want OP_RETURNs to continue being consensus valid up to 1MB in size?
|    Do you see a pressing need to activate another softfork (that isn't CTV) during the year BIP-110 prevents them?
|    Is killing deeper-than-7 trees in taproot going to create some issues?
|    reply [7 replies]

Toxic Bitcoiner -- 60d [parent] [-]
|    Many of us would like to hear more of your thoughts on the technical aspects of the BIP because we value your
|    opinion and are trying to gather as many perspectives as possible. It will help people to make a more informed
|    choice. Cheers Matt.
|    reply [1 reply]

bac3fb9ab844 -- 60d [parent] [-]
|    The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant
|    skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we
|    each rely on.
|    
|    I am convinced that almost everyone in Bitcoin values your work. Thanks. However, after a long period of
|    neutrality and silence, suddenly taking a clear side based on speculative arguments naturally triggers
|    reactions.
|    
|    The reason we have different blockchains today is historically connected to Core’s stance against non-monetary
|    transactions. That is a fact. And that stance has clearly shifted.
|    
|    The data that ends up on the blockchain is a direct consequence of the current rules. Bitcoin is meant to be a
|    payment network. If the current state of the blockchain no longer reflects that, then the rules need to be
|    reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted.
|    
|    Instead of personal attacks, the technical arguments should be discussed. If both sides clearly state what they
|    disagree with on a technical level, compromises and durable solutions can be developed. Especially if the goal
|    is the same.
|    
|    That is exactly what I hardly see from Core and why i oppose it. Why, after such a long time, has no serious
|    compromise even been visibly explored? If concerns are widely expressed and there is still no sign of meaningful
|    reconsideration, it does not look like an open process. It looks like a predetermined direction being pushed
|    through.
|    reply [1 reply]

zBTCowany BIP110 -- 60d [parent] [-]
|    Hey
|    nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5q
|    yxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvzcvpu2 I’m genuinely open to being proven wrong and say I’m sorry.
|    
|    If you’re willing to publish a detailed, substantive response video that meaningfully addresses the technical
|    aspects (similar in depth and seriousness to what
|    nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpz
|    amhxue69uhhx6r4xq6juumgw4nh2u3wdejhgtcat9qe0 did) of course.
|    
|    Furthermore, if you ever decide to publicly support BIP-110, I will record a public apology video mentioning you
|    and donate 100k sats to a pro bono Bitcoin cause of your choice.
|    
|    I’m aware that 100k sats might seem like a laughable amount to you given the scale at which you operate, but
|    it’s not a small amount to me.
|    
|    And I would do it in a heartbeat - without hesitation.
|    reply

𝖋𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖎𝖊𝖗 (¯`◕‿◕´¯) -- 59d [parent] [-]
     Anyone who disagrees with you is a part of the lynch mob. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID 😂
     reply [1 reply]