What about if you have raised millions from shitcoin VCs that you're protecting? What do you say to those people that try to change Core?

"Exercise your logos. Run Bitcoin." Well said, it's so simple yet so profound.

Dear Users,

Yes.

You're Welcome, so Yes.

Your counter arguments have exhausted rationality.

Eat Crow.

Taproot and Ordinal consequences, are exactly why we need one small change so that future changes are not left up a central priesthood of devs with limited neurons, but instead chosen by the consumer, with effects isolated to the consumer.

Core stays the same, the original rules we all chose to play by, stay the same. POW, stays the same, Supply remains intact, which is quite conservative compared to what some of those in your camp are asking for with tail emissions.

There is no "users" or "we" there is only a "user", an individual.

The free market will always be more powerful than a planned economy, which is what we have now with a few interested and funded companies dictating the future of bitcoin on a censored platform like twitter.

A corporate fascist bitcoin. Cyber-Punk instead of Cypher-Punk. A theocracy of Brahmin that must be placated in a forum dominated by biased caste members. A college of bishops burning white or black smoke, ACKS, signaling where bitcoin can go and what it can do.

Or worse, changes must launch a political campaign to convince the mob. Democracy. Democracy has a long and studied history of predictable shortcomings and weakenesses. Democratic money, your node vote, will over time vote itself new supply.

Bring on alternatives; ARK, PRIME & Radiant and RGB, spider this or space that. “We” like them, we want them, but they are, after years, either codeless concepts or impractical and custodial. They are catch-up solutions to innovations and desirable features already executed on other networks.

Intitutional and national Dominance is around the corner. We don't have time anymore.

One small change, the addition of ** a single OP code ** enables innovation to happen on Bitcoin L2 without endangering L1. L2 affects are isolated. You never have to participate, but you benefit from a more secure network with broader and more encompassing userbase. These changes are OPT-IN, the way movie selection on a plane is user chosen, but we all arrive at the same destination.

Consider that you might be the recipient of a well funded marketing campaign by certain companies, devs and influencers who stand to lose a lot of money and time in research made irrelevant by the "more freedom" option. Their stance is explicitly that relying on state legal institutions for trusting your bitcoin is "better". Not very cypherpunk.

No one wants a contentious SF or MASF. "We" would rather your opposing arguments were original and legitimate. "We" would rather your were right, that this is a new dangerous idea by forces trying to harm Bitcoin, rather than an old and tested idea, with enormous amounts of documentation, software and actionable use cases.

Worthy of a Yes, and has been for years.

Miners are pushing for an MASF ?

I must have been staring out the window again, cos i've missed this bit of gossip.

👏

💯

Lets Gooooo!

Well said. I think in the future the pressures to both soft and hard fork will be immense. Imagine the block size wars but with the full weight of Blackrock, Chase, the rest of Wall St, and the corporate/govt propaganda machine (aka mainstream media) behind it. They will lean on both devs and miners very hard to get what they want. It will be up to the pleb node runners to defend bitcoin.

Yes to this post, and no to what changes I will make to my node