HHide&Seek22d ago
Maybe because different people have different opinions? Btw, this is not "my" framing, this is their framing:
"The one-year deployment allows the community to evaluate the impact while developers work on a longer-term solution. Some restrictions would severely constrain future upgrades if permanent, but are acceptable for a limited time to address the immediate crisis."
In other words, this solution sucks, but we have nothing better right now & there's an urgent matter that needs to be adressed right now. (which urgent matter, we are left to our imaginaion 😂)
Sincerely, I find it painful to discuss this matter with you since you talk like you know, and yet didn't even read the proposal itself. Also, that moving the goalpost each time proven wrong... That's not serious: Bitcoin deserves better considerations & care when it comes to touching the consensus. 🤔
💬 1 replies
Thread context
Root: a0d09a42ddf0…
Replying to: 5e1ddbb63460…
Replies (1)
Tauri22d agoI’ve read the proposal and a bunch of opinions from both sides to form an opinion. For example you quote certain passages from the website/github and interpret them in a way that fits your view. I read them and I interpret them in the opposite direction. The problem BIP110 addresses is severe enough to tighten the rules significantly but not to the point they break the foundations. In fact they reinforce them. Ironically the top down decision making of Core v30 made this fork necessary not just in principle but in practice. If you don’t know what I talk about it maybe you haven’t paid enough attention, or you simply prefer to think it’s a nothingburger. Maybe you should have applied this higher standard towards protocol development to Bitcoin Core too. Did you? Are you running v30? If not, why?
0000 sats