pull down to refresh
Luckily, BIP 110 is such a bad idea, even a retard like me can tell.
The argument is not "Bitcoin is invincible or it deserves to die." The argument is that the things BIP 110 supporters are hyperventilating about are trivialities of no real consequence.
There is nothing that is "official" or "normalized" in Bitcoin, there is just what is possible. Pretending that you have some control over how Bitcoin is used is laughable.
maliciously crafted non-Segwit transactions that are very expensive to validate might be an even better example of a dangerous transaction...and yet you don't see the BIP 54 promoters running around like maniacs trying to strong-arm everyone into a rushed fork. Perhaps BIP 110 could learn something from their approach.
I don't believe ordinals are a real engineering problem for Bitcoin, nor do I believe a solution is warranted. i've been using bitcoin all this time perfectly fine.
I can see why you strongly agree with this, @Scoresby, you're retarded.
The argument presents a false dilemma: either Bitcoin is invincible or it deserves to die. But resilience isn't immunity. A system can survive something and still be degraded by it. The author even concedes this by admitting nodes must process the "garbage."
The "deserve to die" framing is a thought-terminator designed to make any engineering concern sound like existential panic. And the pivot to unspendable outputs is a red herring. The real concern isn't that one person kills Bitcoin; it's that normalizing the behavior creates a cumulative cost that this argument refuses to evaluate.