Yea I tend to agree with that assessment. If he and Marty pulled up the bip110 proposal and broke it down point by point they’d be doing themselves and their audience more of a service than just making general claims about “attacks on Bitcoin” Inscriptions and v30 were the attacks (and it seems they didn’t want to rock the boat on those issues) So here we are, where only a few people seem to care enough to offer solutions- but those people must just be vying for power and control of Bitcoin I guess (seems like a projection since how would they somehow magically be the controllers of Bitcoin?) I will say these discussions (even if tribal) are helpful to see who is willing to use logic and reason vs attacks and emotions. There could be a Harvard case study on how the Lopps and jb55s of the world have bungled the discussion (and influenced people in the opposite direction of what they were intending), and relied almost entirely on ad hominem and appeals to authority fallacies in their communication

The attack is: supporting a fork without consensus; calling anyone who disagrees a pedo or captured; implied threats to devs or miners or even node runners that they will be legally liable for *illegal* non-financial data

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome" Another tell is how much an influencer focuses on the current price of btc. Are they mostly focused on where the price is/will be this year, or 20-50 years from now? Many plebs got into bitcoin for their kids and the generations that follow them Whereas VC's and shitcoiners are mainly concerned with their own short term gainz I'd be completely fine with short-term turmoil in bitcoin this year if it makes it stronger in the long run (even though I convinced a family member to put savings for an upcoming trip in bitcoin when it was over $100k 😬- I'll have to cover the difference for that one)

this whole thread is you whining and it’s ironic that you post node numbers when the whole fork is predicated on getting enough hash to wipe out the main chain i have no “vc masters” although ocean did raise $6m from investors

Not on X so I have no idea who's calling who a pedo or captured. Are people actually threatening miners, devs or node runners? Not cool, if so Will say I am concerned about eventually getting a notice that my node/IP address is hosting whatever horseshit the govt deems illegal.. Seems like a highly probable thing a government with a failing currency would do as a capital control masked as "protect the children" Not sure why we'd want to give them that low hanging fruit?

There's a difference between someone whining (like what many diehard Core supporters have been doing) and someone who is trying to thoroughly explain why they believe BIP110 opposers have their incentives misaligned with Bitcoins core principles and are blowing this entire situation out of proportion. The fork is not destroying the main chain. And I don't believe that you believe that either; you're just signal-boosting with that narrative. 110 and Knots are nothing more than a meaningful protest movement, within the community, rather than an existential threat. A philosophical debate that could actually benefit and strengthen bitcoins core values in the long-term, just as the Blocksize Wars did. With all that being said, i think it's time for Core supporters and devs to put a stop to their inflammatory rhetoric and focus more on cooperating with the Knots/110 community and vice versa. It's important to keep in mind that Knots no longer comprises a trivial portion of the network, so refusing to give valid counterarguments to the ones their node runners have given... well... doesn't look good. Also, the ignoring of the opinions of so many who play a detrimental infrastructural role in the network, can't possibly lead to a stable and productive solution. The two parties will have to come to a compromise, at some point. I think we all recognize that. This debate also brings up other serious issues that require the attention and cooperation from the community, as a whole: 1. Should there be limitations on non-payment data and, if so, how extensive should they be? Bitcoin was meant to be a payment network, not a data bazaar. Transforming it into the latter, for whatever reason—whether it be fee revenue or bitcoins underlying censorship resistance principle—is not a step in the right direction. 2. Should we re-evaluate the existing fee market structure? I believe we definitely should. Although, that's a topic for another time. 3. How can we balance miner revenue incentives