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.
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.
@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?
Wow, omega bait huh? Can't believe that's actually your opinion, because if it is then you are really misinformed, in any case this type of flame war is not really welcome.
How about we have a constructive debate instead? Something that doesn't entail calling the work of lots of people 'nothing' or 'bullshit'.
Lightning sucks, doesn't scale to 8 billion people. Is terribly and overly designed with game theory that does not work.
Recent bugs and revelations about these bugs lead to persecution from the community, so the lightning dev culture is broken and waiting to lose A LOT of peoples money.
Some shitcoins might have value, only time will tell, all plants need fertilizer.
the one attitude that is guaranteed to fail over time is the toxic maximalist
who represent an species over specialization (think dodo's) sensitive to heretofore unseen ecological changes
For example, if quantum computing is actually being used right now and has been for years by and against secret agencies, we the public would be the last to know. Meaning all our bitcoin was vulnerable this whole time.
This is what happens in a centralized dictatorship, it over specializes and collapses on its weak points.
If however bitcoin had been more pluralistic, embraced big/dynamic blocks and other changes, or at a minimum BIP 300/1 such that core could remain the same but allow for opt-in experimentation, all the shitcoin development and some few actual technologicaly interesting advancements such as zk-proofs would have happend on Bitcoin (a good thing because shitcoins are, remember, fertilizer) including perhaps tokenized experiments in Quatum resistance.
ALL while paying bitcoin fees and supporting the network.
The market would have rewarded those who chose to invest in those experiments.
But no. Because Bitcoin maxi's are communists we are all at risk of unseen black swans at the same time.
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.
I'd pay to have it not stare at me every time I visit this site.
my understanding is that highest boosted post is pinned on top of site for 30 days
if you're willing to make a post and boost more than existing 290k sats, I guess yours would be on top, and vlads would disappear into the depths of irrelevance
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.
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.
Bitcoin miners are too busy to merge-mine Namecon at the moment.
[meta]Will we have our first boost war?