Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN. I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that. If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats. I agree with that definition. The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN.
I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that.
If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats.
I agree with that definition.
The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
Nice
Good
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.