pull down to refresh
You do know that just repeating this claim like a mantra doesn’t actually make it so, right?
If someone can argue coherently as to why it's wrong, I will change my mind. I have only heard incoherent FUD up until now.
Incoherent FUD like this proposed guide?
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting data storage as a use case, and BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this. If someone finds a better way, I will withdraw BIP-110. Failing that, there is absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-110.
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor.
Measured how?
Do you think that Bitcoin should officially support the arbitrary data storage use case?
No, but that is because there is no official.
I have not met a single non-troll who thinks that Bitcoin should officially support the data storage use case. That seems "official" enough for me.
Do you think that the Bitcoin consensus rules should be restricted to remove abuse?
This is not the motivation of BIP-110. Since you just said that you don't want Bitcoin to officially support the data storage use case, you should support BIP-110 as you are 100% in alignment with its goals, and there is no better proposal on the table to achieve said goals.
Answer the question
By talking to Bitcoiners and noting that no one wants Bitcoin to officially support the data storage use case.
Do you want Bitcoin to officially support arbitrary data storage?
If 2016 blocks is plenty of time to upgrade, why not just have BIP 110 activate 2016 blocks from now?
You cannot be serious.
serious as:
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting data storage as a use case, and BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this. If someone finds a better way, I will withdraw BIP-110. Failing that, there is absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-110.
My statement is serious. Yours is not.
BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this.
absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-100
It's statements like these that get people frustrated with this endeavor. You claim they are serious statements, but it seems pretty clear to me that many people have surface reasonable doubts about the effects of BIP-110. Brushing it all aside by saying "absolutely no reason" is hardly a serious attempt at convincing thinking people to support this BIP.
Ignore them, their way of debating is either disingenuous or reveals serious lack of reasoning capacity.
That being said, the fact that they attract a not insignificant following of bitcoiners suggests to me that Core really needs to signal and communicate better about dealing with the spam issue. (IMO).
They are serious. If you disagree, you should explain why you disagree, otherwise you are just wasting people's time.
this is wasting people's time:
A 55% threshold will not cause disruption. Everyone will have plenty of time to upgrade. (#1405103)
You are the one coming in with a proposal to dramatically change bitcoin. It's on you to put up a serious argument. Statements like this are ridiculous.
But more than that, stop acting like I'm some kind of bad actor for questioning you. You're the one with the new ideas here. If you want to convince other users of Bitcoin to follow along with your fork, you have to win us over. You have no ground on which to stand. You have to earn it, and so far all you've done is act like everyone is obviously on your side and those who are not are bad actors. That's a bullshit way to argue. Stop being such a dork.
If you have a serious objection, I'm listening. So far I have not heard a reasonable objection.
We already went through your 55% threshold objection, and I already explained why I don't think it's a valid objection. If you would like to continue trying to convince me on that topic, then I'm listening. If you want to just level vague accusations at me, then there is no reason for me to engage further.
A 55% threshold will not cause disruption. Everyone will have plenty of time to upgrade.