I asked @DarthCoin a potentially stupid question regarding multisig yesterday, and I came away relatively unscathed, so, today, I'm going to roll the dice (sorry...too soon for that pun?) and try it again with another potentially stupid question regarding BIP110.
This might be too big of a generalization to begin with (and possibly the root of my misunderstanding right from the start), but I see the Bitcoin community today split between the radically opposing sides of BIP110 and Core with a lot of fence sitters floating around in the middle. The BIP110 side is, on the surface at least, advocating for "preserving Bitcoin as money", "protecting Bitcoin's decentralization", "making sure Bitcoin is not/cannot be captured", "separating money and state". The Core side is not outright against any of those ideas but vehemently rejects the technical proposals that the BIP110 side suggests because they don't view them as being effective (i.e. there's no sense in changing anything because there are, and will always be, ways to circumvent spam filtering etc.).
In my admittedly limited view I see the BIP110 ideas as those aligned with Bitcoin maximalism. After lurking here for a couple of years, I would have also put most of the more active/vocal folks in this territory in the Bitcoin maximalism camp as well. However, it's clear to me that these same active/vocal folks are strictly opposed to BIP110. So, that's my question - what is it exactly that most folks here are opposed to?
Is it the way they've gone about the whole thing with a USAF with minority hash support?
Is it the way they've run the fear campaign with all the CSAM/existential threat rhetoric?
Is it because it's a small group with potentially only one dev behind the code?
Is it because the code itself hasn't been battle tested and has already had bugs identified?
Is it because they are potentially setting a precedent that can pave the way for more dangerous attacks in the future?
Or is it a combination of all these things (and likely others I've failed to identify), that will lead to a seemingly inevitable chain split tomorrow and potentially to a subsequent hard fork...and that fact alone makes this entire endeavor too risky for Bitcoin?
I've always heard the saying - "there's three sides to every story...his side, her side, and the truth." In full disclosure, I'm a pansy fence sitter who's been running 'normal' Knots on my nodes for the past year or more...not the RDTS version. I feel like I'm missing something that the group here knows/believes that is closer to the truth. Please rip me a new one and help me better understand.
I asked @DarthCoin a potentially stupid question regarding multisig yesterday, and I came away relatively unscathed, so, today, I'm going to roll the dice (sorry...too soon for that pun?) and try it again with another potentially stupid question regarding BIP110.
This might be too big of a generalization to begin with (and possibly the root of my misunderstanding right from the start), but I see the Bitcoin community today split between the radically opposing sides of BIP110 and Core with a lot of fence sitters floating around in the middle. The BIP110 side is, on the surface at least, advocating for "preserving Bitcoin as money", "protecting Bitcoin's decentralization", "making sure Bitcoin is not/cannot be captured", "separating money and state". The Core side is not outright against any of those ideas but vehemently rejects the technical proposals that the BIP110 side suggests because they don't view them as being effective (i.e. there's no sense in changing anything because there are, and will always be, ways to circumvent spam filtering etc.).
In my admittedly limited view I see the BIP110 ideas as those aligned with Bitcoin maximalism. After lurking here for a couple of years, I would have also put most of the more active/vocal folks in this territory in the Bitcoin maximalism camp as well. However, it's clear to me that these same active/vocal folks are strictly opposed to BIP110. So, that's my question - what is it exactly that most folks here are opposed to?
Is it the way they've gone about the whole thing with a USAF with minority hash support?
Is it the way they've run the fear campaign with all the CSAM/existential threat rhetoric?
Is it because it's a small group with potentially only one dev behind the code?
Is it because the code itself hasn't been battle tested and has already had bugs identified?
Is it because they are potentially setting a precedent that can pave the way for more dangerous attacks in the future?
Or is it a combination of all these things (and likely others I've failed to identify), that will lead to a seemingly inevitable chain split tomorrow and potentially to a subsequent hard fork...and that fact alone makes this entire endeavor too risky for Bitcoin?
I've always heard the saying - "there's three sides to every story...his side, her side, and the truth." In full disclosure, I'm a pansy fence sitter who's been running 'normal' Knots on my nodes for the past year or more...not the RDTS version. I feel like I'm missing something that the group here knows/believes that is closer to the truth. Please rip me a new one and help me better understand.
Cheers.