Fork and get it over with \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

2644 sats \ 13 comments \ @conduition 14 Nov bitcoin

I hope the mempool filtering people move forward with their filtering fork ASAP.

To be clear, I haven't explicitly heard of any "official" plans to initiate a hard fork, but I've spent enough time in Bitcoin to know a fork when I see one coming. It's got all the hallmarks:

Highly vocal and aggressive subcommunity
Beefing with core devs over reference client design choices
Submitting BIP drafts to change consensus rules without due research or community buy-in
Disingenuous/bad-faith behavior (e.g. Classifying inscriptions as a CVE so they could issue a "patch")
Rallying against the core devs' so-called "centralized control" over bitcoin, leading to attempts to change the reference client repo's ownership structure

If i had the choice, I would prefer there to be no fork at all. I wish we could stop this nonsensical infighting today, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen. I don't see any future where Knotsers continue running passive mempool policy rules now that core has explicitly uncapped the default OP_RETURN policy limit. I also don't see any scenario where the dev community suddenly reverses course and implements BIP444 in bitcoind. That leaves only one path.

I want a fork ASAP because I think it's already a fait accompli. The sooner they fork and get it over with, the sooner we can all get this toxic conflict out of our minds, and can continue discussing & building the Bitcoin upgrades which truly matter: Expressibility (Covenants), scaling (CISA), post-quantum security (BIP360), and many more. We should be chasing the stars, pushing the edges of what's possible, not playing games with NFT grifters and their rage-baited adversaries.

It really pains me to see smart people distracted by BIP444 when they have so many better things they could be doing with their time. But nonetheless I am glad to see earnest reviews of these foolish proposals, because then at least others will be able to more easily grasp the inane hubris of trying to censor information on a distributed P2P network.

Just let them fork and get it over with homies. It'll be painful, divisive, toxic, and some people may lose money to replay attacks, but we've seen our fair share of these scenarios before and bitcoin has turned out just fine.

view all related items

131 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 15 Nov

Which fork do you think would inherit the "bitcoin" moniker though

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @conduition OP 7h

Just based on historical precedent alone, I imagine people would default to whichever fork is more economically popular (larger market cap)

I do really hope that if a fork comes, there isn't a protracted fight over naming rights

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @nichro 18h

And which one will inherit the subreddit?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 17h

This is what is concerning you? A meaningless bullshit subreddit?

43 sats \ 1 reply \ @Norbert 15h

It's a sarcastic remark about stale narratives. In the bcash runup a lot of people concerned themselves with "who would get the bitcoin name" and "who would get the subreddit" like it's some sort of divorce proceeding.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 5h

yes, it was a throwback to that (except now I don't think anyone gives a fk about reddit)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Norbert 15h

Let's be careful with terminology; there wouldn't be more than one "fork". Your question is better stated as "which side of the fork".

Nobody would "inherit" the name "bitcoin". The name would stay where it is. There aren't any kingmakers who declare who "gets the name". Perhaps in the 2017 era it was reasonable to speculate whether exchanges would swing their scepters and declare such things, but we learned that's just not how things work.

It's been almost ten years of this. I'm tired. Let's just get this fork over with, get our little airdrops and move on.

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @brentkearney 21h

It really pains me to see smart people distracted by BIP444 when they have so many better things they could be doing with their time. But nonetheless I am glad to see earnest reviews of these foolish proposals, because then at least others will be able to more easily grasp the inane hubris of trying to censor information on a distributed P2P network.

👏

It's not just that it's a distributed p2p network that makes this whole affair inane. Even if Bitcoin were a centralized service, the fact that in order to function, it must store data, means that there will always be a way for miscreants to abuse the data storage function. It sucks, but let's not waste time crying about it.

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 20h

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SHA256man 9h

#1283232

i cud not keep ignoring the occult numerology of BIP444; there is so much dramatic play around this proposal;

sure, fuck it, fork it, see what happens! =)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ken 22h

I propose a fork where a fraction of every transaction is sent to me. It would be really beneficial imo

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 23h

wish denied. this is gonna drag on for a while.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SHA256man 11h

deleted by author