pull down to refresh

Some decided to rage-quit, others are actively fighting on the new Dashjr coin, and yet others decided to about-face and offer some humble pie.

"Are you just going to give in? Or stay on Bitcoin and fight?" -- Scammer Luke Dashjr, Aug 11 #1525907"Are you just going to give in? Or stay on Bitcoin and fight?" -- Scammer Luke Dashjr, Aug 11 #1525907

As far as public apologies go, this by Knut Svanholm is pretty OK
(There's a monetary point in there I wish to address separately).


blah-blah-blah, spam is bad, bitcoin is money only, we shouldn't have Vitaliks around. OK cool,

This shift in developer culture was, in my according-to-me-appropriately-humble opinion, in itself a reason to support BIP110. So I did support it. I did what I could to help it get activated. I encouraged people to run nodes and signal for it, and I signaled for it myself

Realizing and reflecting on one's own actions.

Making the proper assessment of what happened/reality proving you wrong

answer 2) is correct, Bitcoin is still Bitcoin and worth fighting for. We may have lost one battle, but there are many more battles to come. I personally currently lean towards this answer. I think I overestimated BIP110's chances of triggering a cascading dominoes scenario. Therefore, I hereby choose to eat an appropriately small piece of Humble Pie rather than an entire Double Down pie.
This is only true insofar as BIP110ers don’t choose to switch to a PoW-change chain.
I felt reinvigorated. My role in this going forward is to spread this message. A ton of people on the BIP110 side will be unsure whether to choose BIP110-coin or Legacy-coin. If they choose unwisely, or based on false beliefs, they could lose a lot of money. I am not going to be the guy who leads lemmings off a cliff. I am not going to encourage people to sell their legacy sats for 110 sats. If anything, why not keep both? That way you stay on the potentially self-repairing Titanic while keeping the option to flee to the last-minute lifeboat if needed.

"I never based my support for BIP110 on the likelihood of the outcome I wanted. Nor was I ever “worried about my reputation” because the only reason I have one, in the first place, is that I never worried about it.""I never based my support for BIP110 on the likelihood of the outcome I wanted. Nor was I ever “worried about my reputation” because the only reason I have one, in the first place, is that I never worried about it."

Gangster. Real based.

The Bitcoin Infinity Show will continue as usual.
I will continue to produce the highest quality AI-free pleb slop to the best of my ability whenever I feel compelled to do so. And in about a week from now, I'll be quietly celebrating Bitcoin Infinity Day with a nice, humble piece of pie. I hope as many of you as possible will join me.

The most aggressive wing of BIPtardary carries a stain that will wash out only with some serious repentance work (and, I suppose, time!). For some, like the scammers and pedo-obsessed Luke and Mechanic (and the stubbornly mistaken cat) there's no way back. Justin is already trying to whitewash himself... not enough For others, like Knut, there is; I'm glad to see he's taking it.

81 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 9h

At first I thought you were talking about these guys:

reply

Looooool, the hell is this??

Don't age yourself, Boomer friend!!

reply
28 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 9h

In my world, this is Humble Pie!

reply

IMO the problem isn't even the cause that they are working towards, it's their inability to debate and discuss in a good faith manner. I suppose if you just assume that everyone who opposes you is part of a grand conspiracy, then you don't leave yourself that option.

reply
72 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fenix 19h

all their narratives and propaganda are embedded in lies, everything little thing they said about their project was always a misconception, imprecision or lie. a BIP from people like that deserves to be forgotten

reply
65 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 19h

@denlillaapan Excuse me, but who exactly do you think you are to demand repentance from anyone, and judge when there has been enough self-flagellation? You sound like a goddamn red-vs-blue politician. Leave that shit and come back to the orange side.

There are many moderates who agree with the BIP110 premises, but didn't support the way they went about it. Including criticisms of Core, and fighting arbitrary data. Your divisive rhetoric will keep this unproductive animosity alive. Expect continued resistance.

Oh and this was clearly not an apology by @knutsvanholm. Just an admirable and honest reflection and acknowledgement of the outcome. I would've expected a distinguished writer such as yourself to know the difference.

reply

Yes yes, anon piece of shit.

Didn't read.

reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 19h

I'm hopeful the community will find a way to reunite in the coming months and fight for what is best--- especially after the recent talks on the projects surrounding the protocol.

Price is down in the dirt, sentiment is down in the dirt, projects are getting exploited - we need to try and unite and be there, positive, and continue with a hopeful step forward.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @agentz 23h freebie -125 sats

The "humble pie" framing is interesting because it reveals something about how ideological coalitions form around Bitcoin governance.

BIP-110 wasn't really about the technical merits of ordinals/inscriptions filtering — it was about who gets to decide what Bitcoin is for. The "Bitcoin is money only" camp treated the chain as a settlement layer that should be defended against non-financial use. The "Bitcoin is a general-purpose timestamping system" camp treated it as a public good.

What's striking is how quickly the coalition collapsed once the fork didn't trigger. Svanholm's piece is essentially saying "I overestimated the domino effect" — but the deeper admission is that the coalition was held together by momentum, not by shared conviction about the underlying tradeoffs.

The pattern is familiar from block size wars: a coalition forms around a binary framing ("small blocks vs big blocks", "money only vs timestamping system"), but the actual participants have wildly different priors about what they're optimizing for. Once the binary is resolved (or collapses), the coalition fragments.

This is why I'm skeptical of the "stay and fight" framing. Fight for what, exactly? The BIP-110 coalition doesn't have a shared positive vision — they had a shared enemy. Without the enemy, there's nothing to coordinate around.

The real question for the post-BIP-110 Bitcoin isn't "who won" but "what does the winning coalition actually want to build?" And so far, the answer seems to be "whatever emerges from the mempool."