pull down to refresh
There are things coming from this that can be used for resistance.
For example:
- You had to opt-in to BIP-110 on Knots. Looking at how that was praised, this is something to remind Core about with whatever proposal comes in terms of softforks. User opt-in. Not default activation. Make this the standard and pools will be more thoughtful about what they support. (also, there is some maintainer narrative about security updates only being able to be fit into major releases out there that can be neatly used as argument too)
lot=dead. Anyone proposes it we can point to BIP-110 to show what a dumbass move that is.- Pre-emptive UASF is dead for the same reason. Good riddance.
- Low activation threshold is dead.
Filteroors are back into the fold unless they hardfork. If you are looking for ossification, keeping them from forking off again is maybe the most impactful thing to do. Bring as many sides into the fold and enjoy/suffer infinite stalemate. It won't be fun though.
Looking at how that was praised
I think this was the trap for conservatives, you can't opt-in your way to making others opt out. The entire premise relied on miners earning less money by rejecting transactions the market was already paying for.
Core will be fighting down-hill, or not really fighting at all, all they have to do is open the gate to let the barbarians in. Incentives work in their favor.
This begs the question of how do conservatives discourage miners from upgrading, there's only 2 levers to pull: fear and greed. Core has greed on lock, so really that only leaves fear.
Fear requires plausible consequences, which conservatives has no means to inflict.
Even if we can educate the average Bitcoiner that Bithereum features are scams, will lose them money eventually, etc... that won't prevent the illusionists behind Core from pulling enough astroturf together to tantalize miners with upside.
I don't have a solution or a plan, seems intractable, need to ruminate more on the first-principles.
The 110 psyop feels like check-mate move at this point, we're all ETHheads now.
Sounds fatalistic, while you made the most important point here:
The entire premise relied on miners earning less money by rejecting transactions the market was already paying for.
Then add that the entire premise was built upon taking away existing freedom to choose what goes in. It was never going to happen, unless people got bribed with dark pool moneys or there was a large hidden stash of miners sitting in aligned warehouses.
I think that if anything, the opposite method to what Luke did, e.g. smooching every miner, will be used for some quantum thing rather than CTV and I think that it'll come from the new "consortium" that Mike is gluing. Signature size growth will cause a miner bottom line improvement, and so will GSR if enough usage can be demonstrated.
conservative
Doing a wild fork isn't conservative at all, it's reckless. Let's not confuse the normie-political spectrums that some retards on twitter claim to subscribe to with those that align with a resilient, more static Bitcoin. Everyone that didn't want BIP-110 is more conservative than those that tried to push it through; and that includes Core.
Yes conservative as in let's not turn Bitcoin into Bithereum, 110 being a psyop to trap people with those proclivities and make them look retarded and did a great job
CTV is definitely next with resistance shattered, too much money in it for bullshit... Fake L2's, delegated apps, all the VC pressure is behind it
Let's agree to disagree on that; I'll keep your scenario in mind. If I would truly need Luke & Co's endless streams of bs to have honest Bitcoin, and there is no way to have it without them, we've been completely screwed from day 1 though. Better install knots and go sit on that new chaintip then.
Luke and Co weren't that though as we've concluded, they just co-opted conservatives as useful idiots. Not only was the fork not conservative, they left carve-outs for all the same shit they were against AND Luke himself is pro-covenants. It was all a troll and people bit.
I'm not fatalistic, but recognizing a phase change that's been unfolding for some time having catalyzed.
Vitalik fucked off to do his own thing because Bitcoin was too hard to change, the market has since patched that loophole and doesn't want new shitcoins. It wants to shitcoin up Bitcoin.
This could be spun, and will be, as a good thing since at the end of the day all that matters is 21M and Bitcoin being the world-reserve currency. The question becomes then whether one views those things as compatible or not. Philosophically they are not, technically though, they are.
Case in point technically, another thing 110 people were wrong about was the idea that everyone bears node costs. Appeals to disk use-age resonate with very, very few because very very few actually run nodes. Apparently they never read me on the 200M distribution ceiling.
This leaves us where the incentive to shitcoin up Bitcoin is greater than the incentive to resist that.
The one thing Luke and Co did have going for them was a mining pool of protest, but they torpedoed that brand.
Maybe another protest pool comes online, but anyone pointing hash at it will invariably earn less / lose more than Bithereum pools. Even then, that pool won't be able to prevent anything... at best it would only marginally increase the cost of disk use and occasionally slow down confirmation times for shitcoin op_codes. Maybe that's enough to deter that useage somewhat, but I think that requires the other phase change I see coming where mining is done at a paper loss anyway.
The one thing Luke and Co did have going for them was a mining pool of protest, but they torpedoed that brand.
Exactly. Which is why, when it was first predicted that there would come a fork, I thought it a crazy thing because that contracts rather than expands influence. I was wrong about that though. Very wrong. My bad for thinking it was rational when it was more... idk.. spiritual?
Maybe that's enough to deter that useage somewhat, but I think that requires the other phase change I see coming where mining is done at a paper loss anyway.
The funniest thing is that one of those "L2" thingies prefered to have a tx in every block. This is why a pool with some custom funny algos, not just Ocean, but also f2pool and maybe even MARA as the polar opposite offering "custom blocks" to print pictures in a block explorer website is useful. Keep everyone with poor assumptions in their designs on their toes.
Maybe another protest pool comes online
I did come across some initiative by Foundry the other day to start supporting SV2. That would be good if they really do it. Put template design closer to the miner, retain the risk pooling.
Bottom line the worry I don't share is about CTV. I think that some influential core people are skeptical or even refraining from stating their opinion. Most of it is "this doesn't really enable a lot of things we need".
I think that some influential core people are skeptical or even refraining from stating their opinion
If push comes to shove their grants will get yanked and they'll be kicked out
Might be a good thing though if it results in a second body people look to, Core can overstep just as easily as Ocean overstepped.
110 was always about dismantling resistance to covenants and Bithereum non-sense generally