Luke Dashjr on nostr

Open in Damus

@Luke Dashjr 1771618222

It's okay to be ignorant about RDTS and withhold judgement until you understand it better.

It's not okay to be _opposed_ to RDTS, since it just addresses an existential threat to Bitcoin.

RDTS is hostile only to CSAM and spammers.
If you're neither, it's not a hostile softfork, and you should support it.

379❤️28🤙5❤️2💯2🎯1💜1

RamenCoffee · 21h

Any sources you recommend for a layman to understand ? I need to both understand : 1- why is CSAM and spammers are an existential threat. As of now I'm unconvinced. 2-what are the impacts and costs of the proposed solution. Cheers.

Aaron van Wirdum · 21h

nostrich · 21h

Main character syndrome is strong in this one

Jameson Lopp · 21h

dazzling · 20h

But it is only making it slightly more difficult to do it. It just removes one avenue. I don't see the point in sacrificing decentralization for such a small gain. Reeks of shitcoinery to me.

nostrich · 20h

Narrator Voice: "It doesn't address anything at all"

Main character syndrome is a thing, and Bitcoin doesn't need any of y'all. Must hurt doesn't it?

G Force G · 19h

I'm kind of confused about this whole thing. But I don't trust core devs and it seems that bitcoin was meant to allow for node runners and miners to decide what code they want to run for a reason.

SatsAndSports · 18h

I don't want additional complexity. Core v30 needs to go along with bip110. Additional complexity or allowance for it is an attack in bitcoin. It started with core v30 and two wrongs don't make a right. Let's just push knotts without bip110. No need to escalate.

Rod Palmer 📯 Bugle News #40HPW🎧 · 17h

you’re getting BRUTALLY Nostr-mogged right now. Incredible

thePR0M3TH3AN ✝️ BIP110 · 13h

I support this.

The Daniel 🖖 · 12h

https://image.nostr.build/bb4313c5fa07d2ae32d69bc998d246482ce28dd1e014684d8ee4494ea23ad910.jpg

9/11receipts · 3h

nostr:nevent1qqs8y8894dmcm82dcuktvd3jc94erpu659uec8cx835klrgp2mqegjgzyzgp22ml3hlmelzx9awq9ufz7uhrhtjcejc9jscnvl38jqsyu46qzqcyqqqqqqgr297zk