>I like doing things without soft forks too

Nice!


>but if a soft fork improves the things then I'm in favor

Ok.

I like doing things without soft forks too

but if a soft fork improves the things then I'm in favor

I like things to be better, not worse

for example: "barely-working covenants via bitvm" is better than "no covenants at all"

but "fully functional covenants via a soft fork" sounds even better to me

a similar consideration applies to sidechains via bip300

if they are better than what I can make with bitvm then I want the better thing -- but I am also happy to do a barely-functional version with bitvm, because "something" is better than "nothing"

supertestnet

I don't like soft forks how DC. I think we can solve this without forks by this I'd rather BitVM than DCs. 

Rsync25

bitcoin

A sha256 function has been implemented for bitvm -- sidechains next?

bip300 is better than bitvm imo

it is safer and the way to build a sidechain with it is already clear, unlike with bitvm, where I for one am still theorizing 