pull down to refresh

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 18 Jul \ parent \ on: Hi, this is Paul Sztorc - AMA AMA
The fewer soft forks BTC does -- the more likely BTC dies.

My impression is that most bitcoiners think BTC requires "just a few more soft forks" and then it will be good to ossify.

Do you think that continual soft forking is a necessary?

write
compose
112 sats \ 0 replies \ @real_paul_sztorc OP 18 Jul

I don't see it in those terms.

Instead, this is what I see:

  • All modern soft forks are literally harmless. They are opt-in, ignorable, and reversible.
  • It is irrational for plebs to "discuss" soft forks (eg on Twitter), unless they also want to discuss random other pull requests to Core that are not soft forks.

If you had asked me years ago, I would have said Bip300 is all you need! But then OP Vault came out -- and I kind of like it.

And then OP CAT -- it was in the original version of Bitcoin.

Then the big debate about quantum -- we could give people QR sig options, if they want them.

The relevant issue is: is this a smart idea? Can we give a few people something they want -- without it affecting the people who do not want it.

In general it is hard to predict which new soft forks will be invented, and which new problems Bitcoin might face.

So the bigger issue is: why is everyone acting so badly for such irrational reasons? And -- how irrational will be become? Who would have thought it would just be luke ending up yelling total nonsense about child abuse? What's next?

reply