Can you dumb it down for me?
the same principles used to justify core v30 can be used to justify BIP110
the same principles used against BIP110 can be used against v30.
my arbitrary line in the sand is no different than your arbitrary line in the same.
both sides are drawing lines in the sand, but one side pretends they aren’t.
even if ignore the principles driving the line drawing and compare the lines as equally valid, which they aren’t, but if we do, there are real tradeoffs to both.
core v30 advocates point at a “technical” optimization and ignore trade off cost on the other side. BIP110 advocates at least address the true costs on both sides of the line.
censorship, what’s spam, what’s non-monetary and every other tired argument thrown out there to justify v30 destroys itself by its own logic.
i tried steelmanning the case for v30 for about a year. asking every v30 proponent that i could catch their ear to articulate the principles.
that’s just my findings.
if the principles are out there, i couldn’t find them, and adam back, lopp, wicked, rearden, shinobi and mr hodl couldn’t articulate them either
in a philosopher, ill go whereever the best arguments presented take me. so am always open to hearing arguments.
its my practice of steelmanning both sides and sending them against each other before i decide anything.
not sure if thats dumbed down or not, but the best i can do
the same principles used against BIP110 can be used against v30.
my arbitrary line in the sand is no different than your arbitrary line in the same.
both sides are drawing lines in the sand, but one side pretends they aren’t.
even if ignore the principles driving the line drawing and compare the lines as equally valid, which they aren’t, but if we do, there are real tradeoffs to both.
core v30 advocates point at a “technical” optimization and ignore trade off cost on the other side. BIP110 advocates at least address the true costs on both sides of the line.
censorship, what’s spam, what’s non-monetary and every other tired argument thrown out there to justify v30 destroys itself by its own logic.
i tried steelmanning the case for v30 for about a year. asking every v30 proponent that i could catch their ear to articulate the principles.
that’s just my findings.
if the principles are out there, i couldn’t find them, and adam back, lopp, wicked, rearden, shinobi and mr hodl couldn’t articulate them either
in a philosopher, ill go whereever the best arguments presented take me. so am always open to hearing arguments.
its my practice of steelmanning both sides and sending them against each other before i decide anything.
not sure if thats dumbed down or not, but the best i can do
2
