dgy

+- dgy -- 1d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Do people pushing hard for digitalization not have parents and grandparents    |
| who will be overwhelmed and get lost in this process? You will get older as    |
| well and be less able in forty years to relearn things all the time. So,       |
| rethink your behavior and lower your time preference.                          |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 6d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| ...and the honeypots may also be confiscated à la 6102 style                   |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 6d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| An attack in the digital realm often involves the exploitation of several      |
| vulnerabilities across different areas, combined simultaneously. Bitcoin's     |
| vulnerabilities are economically ignorant developers, centralized mining, and  |
| honeypots of large, centrally held holdings. To reduce attack vectors, patches |
| should be applied regularly and as soon as possible—for instance #BIP110.      |
| Further increasing the node count and expanding self-custody among holders are |
| essential.                                                                     |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 7d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Yes, it does not block spam, but at least it does not make the situation       |
| worse. You never know what the progressives (core-v30+) may add additionally   |
| in the future.                                                                 |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 7d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Renting hash rate is a possible implementation of the concept that hodlers are |
| taking responsibility for safekeeping of their stack by paying a "fee". And I  |
| suppose that this fee is lower than any deposit fee at a bank or the storage   |
| fee including insurance in a gold vault, where those fees may eventually eat   |
| up the principal over time as they are a small percentage of the value.        |
| nostr:nevent1qqsx3nlz3ryg4p73ngyt60hqms3997uvw2y77xq8r5rj2g2pcumwqaclcj7km     |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 8d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| There are certainly signs of political maneuvering here. However, given that   |
| the people involved in this movement have been in bitcoin for a long time and  |
| are also opposing spam, I would not conclude bad behavior yet.                 |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 8d ---------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Is #BIP110 rushed? If you're still complaining rather than taking action, then |
| yes—it will appear rushed. But in that case, you can only blame yourself, as   |
| it's been out there for a while now.                                           |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 10d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Linus Torvalds once said: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." So, where is the  |
| code #ProductionReady? Cloning a repo is not a difficult task, but it is the   |
| first one and a visible one. The conclusion may be drawn that all of it is     |
| just obstruction if that does not happen soon. Especially if they criticize    |
| #BIP110 but do not deliver their promised alternative.                         |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 13d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Any bitcoin developer who actively enables spam by removing filters, or        |
| passively prevents the fixing of the bugs currently misused for spam, is       |
| essentially reversing the work of all predecessors who improved the protocol   |
| by making transactions more efficient. That is rather destructive behavior.    |
| #BIP110                                                                        |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 14d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| There is a difference between your local home network and the internet out     |
| there. Treating them both the same is just annoying security theater and       |
| counterproductive. For instance, HTTP connections and self-signed certificates |
| should be treated less restrictive in an internal network. #LibreWolf #Firefox |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 14d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| I guess, in case of a chain split, the new ticker for the spam chain will be   |
| BTS and I could not care less if S stands for spam or shit ;-) #BIP110         |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 18d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| How strongly will the different factions defend their positions in the         |
| showdown of #BIP110? The spammers have high time preference and will probably  |
| move somewhere else. The miners have high capex, and if they are public        |
| companies, they have fiduciary duties; therefore, they will probably minimize  |
| risk and forgo the 1% spam fee revenue. Sinfluencer will continue to confuse   |
| some bitcoiners with censorship talk, quantum FUD, attack theories, etc., but  |
| those bitcoiners will feel betrayed when they realize that all these talks and |
| theories do not serve them in the end. The protestants (core v29-) did not     |
| move much during the last year, and #ProductionReady did not yet deliver       |
| anything. However, some maxis of the BIP110 camp may fight hard, a.k.a. "dying |
| on that hill." So, what is the probable outcome?                               |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 19d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Only the president can stage a real war to distract from dirty pictures in     |
| "the files". The #sinfluencers have to try it with quantum FUD again to        |
| distract from their pictures on the chain. Do not fall for it. #BIP110         |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 21d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Nolens volens, accepting #BIP110 seems the rational thing to do for miners.    |
| The outcome to avert is a phase of temporary, chaotic, and unstable chain      |
| splits (price volatility, chain wipeout risk, etc.). The alliance between the  |
| progressives (Core v30+) and protestants (Core v29–) does not serve the        |
| latter, as they reject spam and shitcoinery as well. Therefore, an alliance    |
| with Knots and the BIP110 moratorium serves them better, and that ultimately   |
| forms the majority.                                                            |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 22d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| To say that fighting spam with #BIP110 threatens the credibility of the        |
| bitcoin economic system, while turning a blind eye to the storage of dirty     |
| pictures on-chain, is ludicrous. #Sinfluencers claiming this cognitive         |
| dissonance deserve an unfollow. Starve them with a decreasing follower count   |
| and reach.                                                                     |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 23d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| That one has to sacrifice the moneyness of money for the sake of its survival  |
| sounds stupid, but that is exactly what this talk about the "long-term         |
| security budget" is. No, we do not need the fees from spam transactions for    |
| bitcoin to survive; otherwise, it would have already failed. #BIP110           |
| nostr:nevent1qqsx3nlz3ryg4p73ngyt60hqms3997uvw2y77xq8r5rj2g2pcumwqacpg3mhxw309 |
| an85dm8decxua3hxe3ngm3509jxjctdxejhjmrvxf5xjerdxae85um5w3mkk6rkwyekgvm9ddchgam |
| 6w9u8x7rvv9jzummwd9hkutczyqgr0mklraeg2ctnszx63l46h6fufxag6jazq334lasqcqdg7ux5y |
| qcyqqqqqqgpug7y5                                                               |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 24d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| If #BIP110 fails, we drift into a lane leading to an unrunnable chain filled   |
| with garbage. This then leads to the KYC chain because it can only be run by a |
| third party, and you may only use it when authorized by the gatekeepers. And   |
| with that, the bitcoin idea has died.                                          |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 26d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Ossification of the bitcoin protocol as any other protocol lies in the nature  |
| of a protocol as it gets embedded in more and more systems. Further            |
| development of the ecosystem will take place on layers above the base          |
| protocol. Therefore, being against #BIP110 because it may hinder further       |
| development is nonsensical.                                                    |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 27d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| To say that you are just doing your job is the most agentless fiat behavior    |
| there can be. Reading up on all the information recently revealed about some   |
| core devs, I really get the impression that some people just did "a job" and   |
| were not even particularly interested in what it was. That does not sound like |
| a novel movement that will change the world anymore. :-( #BIP110               |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 27d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| There are basically three camps at the moment: Knots, CoreV30+, and Core29-,   |
| but on legacy sites like bitref.com/nodes, coin.dance/nodes etc. the latter    |
| two are counted as one and this give the impression that there are only two    |
| camps with a large core share. This however, does not reflect reality. So, if  |
| #ProductionReady delivers soon and people running Core29- are changing to this |
| implementation then the fact that there are three camps will be reflected as   |
| such everywhere. That would be a good thing in the medium term.                |
|                                                                                |
| nostr:nevent1qqspm7em3l5wzldqdfzfk45xqevmppe0gezwwc876fth76sxk2mtt7qppemhxue69 |
| uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgspqdlwmu0h9ptpwwqgm287h2lf83ym4r2t5gzxxhlkqrqp4rms6ssrqsqqqqq |
| pcklrhy                                                                        |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 27d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Yes, they have to deliver something first. However they talked about another   |
| client for a long time. It is not a new idea.                                  |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 28d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Yes, I guess that multiple options that involves more people may make this     |
| movement for less spam more probable.                                          |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 28d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| With #ProductionReady in place, it will potentially be more difficult for the  |
| progressive people in core to softly force people to upgrade to the newest     |
| versions of their software as older versions of bitcoin core software are no   |
| longer patched. As a result, you will probably have three major players in the |
| market, with progressives in the minority, and ossification will accelerate    |
| further. #BIP110                                                               |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 29d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| If users who have not yet updated to >=v30 or changed to Knots switch to       |
| #ProductionReady, then the loss of market share for Core would be correctly    |
| reflected even on legacy node statistics sites. The loss is, in fact, far more |
| than 50%. I mean, how can you count the people who refuse to update to the     |
| Core camp? That seems like a classic instance of lying with statistics.        |
| #BIP110                                                                        |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 29d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Getting accustomed to an existing codebase is a time-consuming endeavor in     |
| software development. The fact that the girls hired for DEI purposes struggled |
| to produce anything useful for a long time underlines this point. Developing   |
| in the open (book recommendations: "Producing Open Source Software" by Karl    |
| Fogel, "Working in Public" by Nadia Eghbal) cannot hide politics or mediocre   |
| performance for a long time. In the end, everything will be revealed rather    |
| quickly, and forking the codebase is the result. #BIP110                       |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 31d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| If a miner is relying on the additional fee currently generated by spam, then  |
| such a company is doomed soon anyway. The market gets more competitive with    |
| every halving, and these companies are the weakest link and are therefore      |
| eliminated first. Why should node runners subsidize such a dying business?     |
| #BIP110                                                                        |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 34d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Just to say "#BIP110 will fail" is not a real argument. At least you need to   |
| provide an explanation of why you think so — only then a debate is possible.   |
| Until now, I have not heard any real arguments from the opponents; just        |
| confused statements or ones that were refuted long ago. Is it just laziness or |
| is it escapism?                                                                |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 35d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Are you using the remaining time effectively? I could imagine that a lot of    |
| shaky and scammy crypto businesses will be eliminated by uncertainty and price |
| volatility in the fall. As an end user, you have to ensure that all your funds |
| are in self-custody. Avoid centralized services like the devil shuns holy      |
| water. #BIP110                                                                 |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 38d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| If you are against spam and against #BIP110, you can always propose a better   |
| solution. However, complaining and doing nothing is more of an obstruction     |
| than a constructive option.                                                    |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+

+- dgy -- 39d --------------------------------------------------------------[...]+
|                                                                                |
| Kicking the can down the road and doubling down on exponentially growing money |
| printing or bailouts without solving the underlying problem is fiat mentality. |
| So, yes, there is urgency in #BIP110 in fixing the issue with spam as bitcoin  |
| is not fiat.                                                                   |
|                                                                                |
+-- reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+