pull down to refresh

438 sats \ 3 replies \ @supertestnet 6 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: Luke Dashjr said that Ordinals & BRC20 will no longer exist on Bitcoin. bitcoin
that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway
But it is
Take segwit as an example
A big reason it was introduced was to block coinbase transactions that used covert asic boost
They used to be perfectly valid, and moreover, such transactions were popular among miners. But segwit put a stop to them
Censorship, pure and simple
We censored before and we can censor again. If the things being censored make bitcoin worse money then I'm in favor of it, because such censorship makes bitcoin better money, which is what I want: better money
You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.
Sounds like you can do it with consensus
But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant)
But they are relevant
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
He wants rules that make inscriptions more difficult
That's a perfectly valid proposal and I support it too so that makes at least two of us
Consensus emerges with sufficient support, and that's when bitcoin's rules can change
write
preview
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 6 Dec 2023
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
People forget that this is the pointy end of what all this means. When people are crusading for sovereignty of nodes, and consensus, this is that. Whoever you happen to be, it will probably not fall out in the way that you like all the time.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zepasta 6 Dec 2023
Who would've thought that my basic "FUCK THAT GUY" would spark so many discussions (and notifications ^^)
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Bitcoinisawesome 6 Dec 2023
It was a nice discussion so thank you for your three-word spark :)
reply