Total size vertical is all zero

Forking after the filter is already in place isn't a vote. It's damage control. The data deemed 'illegitimate' never made it to a block in the first place. Hash can't follow value it never saw.

Did I say that spam helps scaling? No. Grow a brain.

Miners are employees of the network. The network is controlled by nodes because node runners own the land where bitcoin lives. The miners are but serfs on the land. The extra fees from spam dust are not a strong enough incentive when only a couple of miners have the spam profitting VC firms backing them. When other miners can easily get more blocks and coinbase on a clean chain they switch over and leave the spam blocks to die.

No, what he's saying is that making it BIP-110 compatible requires more tricks but is nonetheless possible without breaking continuity.

That’s a real non-answer. I thought you felt strongly about this? MARA already had Slipstream and Libre Relay already existed pre v30 and was there any issue with mempools?.. So why did Core need to sanction new defaults and had originally slated deprecation of datacarriersize entirely? That last point is important if you want to engage this topic properly. I think that is what forced the BIP110 hand to counter, how far Core were willing to go even if they didn’t pull the trigger - they showed their hand and forced the issue. Core is always going to be under attack, it’s the weakest Link in Bitcoin. Having paid Devs at this point is making it worse - either Devs have been around long enough and understood it well enough to free themselves from needing a monthly paycheck or they shouldn’t be touching it. If that means Bitcoin dev slows down 80% I don’t think anyone in the crowd you’re criticising would have a problem with it. Eric is no better than Luke and in many ways worse. I respect his brain more but he’s softer than a wet paper bag; if he had the lead implementation I’d give Bitcoin a year before it fell over from something he missed but was warned about and dismissed. His ego is out of control; not that Luke is much better. But back to the original point - Core started this, you’re complaining about reactions; fair enough. Core could end this by reverting v30 - should they do that for the good of Bitcoin? Or should we have a Mexican standoff play out which benefits absolutely fucking no-one and almost certainly someone is getting shot in the head by the end of this?

That’s a sin both sides have committed. The community is responding to what they deem as I unacceptable. Some people are here for more than fiat gains.

That attitude usually comes from a place of entitlement and laziness, at a time when it's easier than ever to educate yourself about bitcoin. All I can suggest is to do your own research like everyone else, or you'll lose your economic power by following the wrong fork as has happened to many others with that attitude. I spent too much time trying to convince ungrateful people (who called me a conspiracy theorist) why they should drop USD and store value in bitcoin (when it was below $100!). I spent too much time trying to convince ungrateful people who made "money" from bitcoin not to buy shitcoins (that have all now gone to zero). I spent too much time trying to explain to people why they shouldn't sell their btc to buy BCH. At some point, all I can say is "sucks to be you" to people who get it wrong. No one is entitled to other people's time to spoon feed them and guide into the right decision. This train doesn't stop just because you don't understand what's going on and didn't put in the effort to understand it, the train will simply crush you if you get it wrong.

Fair. That’s all most of are saying. A reasonable approach. I’m with you ! I think we all agree on most things. But our small differences amplified by a few just make it worse. Same with anything tho really.

Superb 🥰

💯

Paragraph it along your faggot arse, Meattard.

Resist to what? Personally, I would resist to bad engineering & bad faith, which in my view is *both* core v30 and BIP110. If we keep going down that path, it could very well kill bitcoin. I want quality contributors & quality contributions. I think everyone should enforce have the same high standards. I still think spam issues can be mitigated, but this needs to be done well by someone who's level-headed, not as some personal vendetta that doesn't care for the consequences.

I would agree with you here. I think he had to put significant efforts into it, and I think it would be both harder and more expensive to make it BIP110 compatible. So basically he's making two points: - A motivated state actor will always be able to put contiguous csam on bitcoin if they decide to do so. — you just won't fix that. - If we make it more expensive for spammers, we might end up in a situation where the spam becomes more damaging in order to get in anyway. However, he's also showing that counter-measures make spamming significantly more difficult. The problem being, once someone writes and standardize a work-around, it becomes easy again (just more expensive). Personally I would still favor easy/non-damaging counter-measures, but not as aggressive as BIP110 that will clearly come back to bite us.