The soft fork mechanism is similar.. do you have reading comprehension issues?
And what is your problem with BIP-110?
Besides not doing anything useful, being the most reckless activation of any fork ever (55%? Yikes), and completely undermining any valid narrative against spam?
Mostly all the charlatans spreading complete nonsense. Like that it's how Bitcoin was before Core changed datacarriersize. Those got through just fine with librerelay, which helped eat Slipstream's lunch. And this idea that without spam we'd have a smaller chain. Sure -- and without use our chain could be as small as the BCH chain. But we have a 4 MB limit, and that's being observed, so no size within that range is outside what any node signed up to store. And if they're putting it in op return, it's actually less of a computational weight, as is is less script to process, and fewer forever utxo's added as dust. Though, utreexo does seem a reasonable option to solve the dust issue, either from normal spam or outright attacks which had always been a looming possibility from those who'd seek to effectively DoS Bitcoin.
The CSAM FUD is especially rich. Never thought I'd see think of the children used to whip Bitcoiners into a frenzy like a bunch of boomers. All the more amusing given that we have demonstrably seen jpegs in BIP110 compliant transactions, which even the people who in one breath use the CSAM argument will admit in the next.
Mining centralization is the issue that made datacarriersize and mempool policy in general ineffective at filtering spam. Which is worth filtering, though is hardly the existential threat the Kratter Kult makes it out to be. As long as Slipstream is an option, policy for anything cannot be useful, and that is the point of focus we should be working toward. Not saying many aren't -- but 110 is a distraction. A knee jerk, 'we have to do SOMETHING' distraction. One which at best does nothing useful.
Mostly all the charlatans spreading complete nonsense. Like that it's how Bitcoin was before Core changed datacarriersize. Those got through just fine with librerelay, which helped eat Slipstream's lunch. And this idea that without spam we'd have a smaller chain. Sure -- and without use our chain could be as small as the BCH chain. But we have a 4 MB limit, and that's being observed, so no size within that range is outside what any node signed up to store. And if they're putting it in op return, it's actually less of a computational weight, as is is less script to process, and fewer forever utxo's added as dust. Though, utreexo does seem a reasonable option to solve the dust issue, either from normal spam or outright attacks which had always been a looming possibility from those who'd seek to effectively DoS Bitcoin.
The CSAM FUD is especially rich. Never thought I'd see think of the children used to whip Bitcoiners into a frenzy like a bunch of boomers. All the more amusing given that we have demonstrably seen jpegs in BIP110 compliant transactions, which even the people who in one breath use the CSAM argument will admit in the next.
Mining centralization is the issue that made datacarriersize and mempool policy in general ineffective at filtering spam. Which is worth filtering, though is hardly the existential threat the Kratter Kult makes it out to be. As long as Slipstream is an option, policy for anything cannot be useful, and that is the point of focus we should be working toward. Not saying many aren't -- but 110 is a distraction. A knee jerk, 'we have to do SOMETHING' distraction. One which at best does nothing useful.
11❤️1