pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 10 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023 \ on: Sunday Survey: BIP300 soft fork scenario bitcoin
At this point it would be awesome is some opponent of DCs articulates simple and clear scenario(s) what could go wrong for DC and non-DC users.
It is shameful that most (all?) critique boils down to unknown unknowns. That is ultra conservative approach that has more risks than benefits in competitive market environment.
I am pro-DC because i have not seen such arguments. I am happy to change my position if there is a clear risk.
Your entire reasoning is backwards and against bitcoin ethos. You should be against any change as long as you haven't seen any good arguments pro. Bitcoin isn't broken and doesn't need any fixing.
"Competitive market environment". You talk like an ETH talking head. Bitcoin is money. Almost all other coins (except Monero) are corporate tokens.
reply
Bitcoin isn't broken and doesn't need any fixing
Counterpoint: bitcoin isn't perfect and could use improving
There are more reasons to do an upgrade than "the current version is broken"
If better sidechains improve bitcoin then I want that
Because I want bitcoin to be the best money
reply
Did Bitcoin need Taproot? Did it need SegWit?
reply
So that's your argument ? It needed those so it must need DC ?
reply
Nope, you are using this “purity” argument and i am showing you that you are using different standards for recent changes so you have no historical precedence.
When it comes to importance DC proponents see that as change that could actually reduce number of future updates so it is leaning more of your conservative approach to upgrade policy.
reply
Every change has come with unforeseen consequences, leading many to become more and more conservative. Past changes have increased conservatism in Bitcoin.
I also did not say whether Bitcoin needed Taproot/SegWit or not. You are saying it did, not me.
reply
I am just asking. I think it is great those made it through. Certainly it helped LN a lot.
Problem i see is that you approach Bitcoin as something that was given by god and people will therefor automatically adopt it. No, people will adopt something that supports their usecases and it is up to us (people involved in the process) to steer it toward values of decentralization, scarcity, …
reply
Bitcoin competes for the status of money not despite but because it doesn't constantly implement slurges and purges and merges. For Bitcoin to compete as money, it has to remain boring, stable and not change constantly. Who would put his life savings in a constantly changing, unpredictable protocol?
reply
No one needs to prove that something could go wrong. The onus is on the proponents to prove nothing could go wrong.
reply
Do you realized that that is not possible, right? Proving the negative. Anyway, if something goes wrong we can activate URSF at that very moment.
reply