Damus
Derek Ross · 6w
I watched the 2017 Bitcoin Cash fork from the sidelines. What I see today with BIP-110 is eerily familiar. After that split, something toxic hardened into the chains. Many BCH and BSV supporters stil...
Jzpx7Gg profile picture
This is the "imperial strikes back" moment of big blockers. There was a chance to go back to pre taproot bloat, while still enjoying taproot, and reinforce the op return limit that has been in place for most of bitcoin's life. It all went down the drain on Saturday.

Still, if it had been rejected by a USARF, then it would have been bad but you could argue node runners and plebs are still in charge. What happened instead is that miners demonstrated they are in charge now. They ultimately decide what changes go in (bitcoin core ones) and which do not (bip110)
Go rewatch that old video by Andreas to an Ethereum crowd, "the difference between I won't do that and I can't do that". The State can now coopt bitcoin at will with 6 or 7 phone calls.

A hard fork is required now as an insurance policy. While it exists, the State is incentiviced not to abuse their control on Bitcoin too clearly or to fast, or people might jump off their coopted chain.
If it is not there, then you have no choice and the State pretty much owns you again.

Don't you see it?

1
paxchristi · 5w
The “state” as in the US? What about mining distributed in other countries who have opposing interests? Or what about miners setting up shop on a “remote island” outside of the “state”, chasing down cheap renewables? I get that mining is too centralised right now, but I don’t see how...