No, because a counter-fork to reject RDTS would be explicitly protecting the ability to force others to distribute child porn.
Core30 intentionally enabled attackers to force every Bitcoin user to distribute CSAM.
This is a fatal wound because nobody is going to be willing to use Bitcoin if it requires them to do that.
(Remember, Bitcoin only works if _most people_ are using full nodes.)
RDTS rejects/undos the changes Core30 made. It prevents the CSAM attack.
Rejecting RDTS requires creating a counter-fork like Bcash.
To oppose or reject RDTS is therefore an explicit action to enable people to force CSAM on Bitcoin.
Therefore, if someone actually tries to reject RDTS, the name of their fork is Bpedo.
This is a fatal wound because nobody is going to be willing to use Bitcoin if it requires them to do that.
(Remember, Bitcoin only works if _most people_ are using full nodes.)
RDTS rejects/undos the changes Core30 made. It prevents the CSAM attack.
Rejecting RDTS requires creating a counter-fork like Bcash.
To oppose or reject RDTS is therefore an explicit action to enable people to force CSAM on Bitcoin.
Therefore, if someone actually tries to reject RDTS, the name of their fork is Bpedo.
610❤️33❤️3🤙3🚀2👀1💜1
