@psztorc has lost all credibility to me ever since I hard him being disingenuous when discussing proposals other than Drivechains. If he's dishonest about competing proposals, how can I trust him when discussing his own stuff?
CUSF will be the greatest example of why a miner activated soft fork is not an actual activation.
Why can't you just undo soft forks? Because nodes enforce the rules of soft forks and undoing those rules would require everyone to coordinate i.e. a hard fork.
But what if nodes aren't enforcing a soft forks rules? Well then it could be undone easily by the miner coordination.
Love your show dude! So glad you're here! You have a great quirky show, ask good questions, let people talk a lot, and keep it at a level us plebs can understand.
Honestly I listen to most of the more technical podcasts too, but yours and Bitcoin Audible I think are the two best for trying to help normies and maxis understand what the hell is going on in Bitcoin dev space, and why it's important.
Thank you sir, much appreciated! Had a pretty rough year with a couple of nerve-breaking moments, it's good to see some appreciation too. It's what motivates me to keep going.
Getting deja vu. I'm always impressed how much money people waste trying to change Bitcoin to suit their vision. How much did the bcashers lose all told? Must be on the order of a million BTC.
But why not drive Drivechains on Monero first ? The way I understand it, it will attract more miners to their chain. and when Monero is with more hash-power we just migrate/drivechain Bitcoin to the more secure chain. Bitcoin miners are too busy to merge-mine Namecon at the moment.
won't work on monero, completely different design. LTC and BCH maybe, but they have actually done things and their projects have L2's and are L2 friendly through other technologies the Maxi imbiciles are afraid of for bad reasons
So it is something like a switch for a soft fork "x"? I mean like the switch I can turn on and off about RBF or about datacarriersize? It does not seem too terrible.
However having too many switches may become overwhelming to me (not to say to a normal user)
Soft forks are ok with me. Miners can choose any txs to mine anyway, and we already have a lot of types of txs (rbf on/off, op_return, inscription, multisig, taproot, legacy, etc).
The thing about another software in parallel to core looks a bit risky for me. I do not like lightning because lf that, more risks for bugs.
Because of all the above, I prefer to not do this. There are very good devs at core, the human factor/reputation is important.
Bitcoin forks are variably defined as changes to the Bitcoin network protocol or as situations that occur “when two or more blocks have the same block height.” A fork influences the validity of the rules. Giving the preliminary concept of what it means, it can be said that forks are generally performed to add new features to a blockchain, to reverse the effects of hacking or catastrophic errors. Forks require consensus to resolve or else a permanent split arises. A hard fork would be the perfect strategy to protect assets within the bitcoin network, it should be valued as it would help more efficiently reverse network damage.
Can we have a deboosting option? This is just drivechain crap that's not really interesting. I'd pay to have it not stare at me every time I visit this site. If Vlad wants to boost against the de-boosting of everyone else, more power to him, but I'd pay to not see this post.
Also available in audio-only format across all streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Fountain & more) for those of you who don't care about video.
sounds terribly dangerous.
because you are small minded and easily scared
@psztorc has lost all credibility to me ever since I hard him being disingenuous when discussing proposals other than Drivechains. If he's dishonest about competing proposals, how can I trust him when discussing his own stuff?
Why are you anon, genuinely curious
Core and small blockers have lost credibility after doing nothing for 10+ years and wasting time and resources on bullshit like lightning.
CUSF will be the greatest example of why a miner activated soft fork is not an actual activation.
Why can't you just undo soft forks? Because nodes enforce the rules of soft forks and undoing those rules would require everyone to coordinate i.e. a hard fork.
But what if nodes aren't enforcing a soft forks rules? Well then it could be undone easily by the miner coordination.
and it's success in less time than it's taken Lightning to be still shit, will be the greatest condemnation of toxic Maxi's and Core.
https://bip300cusf.com/cusf.pdf
Not the most insightful guy I've seen on the podcast I'll be honest...
Who's the most insightful guy you've seen on the podcast?
Hhmm can't remember them all but the John Carvalho on Lightning comes to mind.
This guy, Paul, needs to leave. And shove things in places.
Love your show dude! So glad you're here! You have a great quirky show, ask good questions, let people talk a lot, and keep it at a level us plebs can understand.
Honestly I listen to most of the more technical podcasts too, but yours and Bitcoin Audible I think are the two best for trying to help normies and maxis understand what the hell is going on in Bitcoin dev space, and why it's important.
Thank you sir, much appreciated! Had a pretty rough year with a couple of nerve-breaking moments, it's good to see some appreciation too. It's what motivates me to keep going.
"290k boost" lol
have fun staying poor
[meta]Will we have our first boost war?seems like it, it just replaced #803740
lol no
Not gonna happen
gonna happen
no
you can't stop it, nodes can't, no one can
im not trying to stop it
good 4 u
Incredible 290k boost and 905 sats zapped. 🤔
Getting deja vu. I'm always impressed how much money people waste trying to change Bitcoin to suit their vision. How much did the bcashers lose all told? Must be on the order of a million BTC.
Bitcoin Maxi's are embracing the state, KYC and values itself in a fiat number. They are even discussing tail inflation.
BCH lost the battle but not the war.
Monero will win the war.
But why not drive Drivechains on Monero first ?
The way I understand it, it will attract more miners to their chain.
and when Monero is with more hash-power we just migrate/drivechain Bitcoin to the more secure chain.
Bitcoin miners are too busy to merge-mine Namecon at the moment.
won't work on monero, completely different design. LTC and BCH maybe, but they have actually done things and their projects have L2's and are L2 friendly through other technologies the Maxi imbiciles are afraid of for bad reasons
We need a short TL;DR for this. Why would miners (or is it mining pools?) do this and why?
Maximize their revenue? You know, they make money from fees.
Ah Christ, this guy again.
Subscribe!
good show! Thanks for the episode
So it is something like a switch for a soft fork "x"?
I mean like the switch I can turn on and off about RBF or about datacarriersize?
It does not seem too terrible.
However having too many switches may become overwhelming to me (not to say to a normal user)
Soft forks are ok with me. Miners can choose any txs to mine anyway, and we already have a lot of types of txs (rbf on/off, op_return, inscription, multisig, taproot, legacy, etc).
The thing about another software in parallel to core looks a bit risky for me. I do not like lightning because lf that, more risks for bugs.
Because of all the above, I prefer to not do this. There are very good devs at core, the human factor/reputation is important.
Gettin' boosty wit-it 🫳🏻💰
if the eyes are windows into the soul, this guy is...shifty ba dun TSSSSS
Bitcoin forks are variably defined as changes to the Bitcoin network protocol or as situations that occur “when two or more blocks have the same block height.” A fork influences the validity of the rules.
Giving the preliminary concept of what it means, it can be said that forks are generally performed to add new features to a blockchain, to reverse the effects of hacking or catastrophic errors. Forks require consensus to resolve or else a permanent split arises.
A hard fork would be the perfect strategy to protect assets within the bitcoin network, it should be valued as it would help more efficiently reverse network damage.
excellent podcast and every topic discussed there about bitcoin gives a solid foundation of how to understand the ecosystem. Thanks for sharing
How is this still at the to top of SN
Cha ching!
Great!
Hunky dory!
What a great, perfect podcast, congratulations on appearing on the podcast show, I hope SN friends can also be like this.
🔗 Privacy-friendly: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=p2zXzG9-abc
Niceee
Ok
Sounds awesome
Seems like it people make money
Can we have a deboosting option? This is just drivechain crap that's not really interesting. I'd pay to have it not stare at me every time I visit this site. If Vlad wants to boost against the de-boosting of everyone else, more power to him, but I'd pay to not see this post.
Also available in audio-only format across all streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Fountain & more) for those of you who don't care about video.
Make sure you also subscribe!
https://bitcoin-takeover.com/audio/index.php?name=2024-12-10_s15_e68_paul_sztorc_on_activating_drivechains_without_a_soft_fork_cusf_-_09.12.2024_21.07.mp3