Damus
Toxic Bitcoiner profile picture
Toxic Bitcoiner
@toxicbitcoiner
In hindsight, wasn’t Taproot a hostile fork?
1. Over 5 years later, hardly anyone uses it, except spammers. No major product market fit yet.
2. It was a “nice to have”, wasn’t a response to a threat (debatably like segwit was).
3. It ratcheted up the spam problem, which creates another problem now with another possible fork.

If you supported Taproot, then what did you get wrong, such that you supported a hostile fork? Do you apologize?

Before you get to anything else, it thinks it’s important that you ask yourself those two questions, then reflect on the answers.
264❤️5💯2🤔2🚀1🧡1
Ronin · 7w
Core should be ultra conservative, they should only make rule changes when people and businesses start screaming demanding that new feature.
0x2F9E · 7w
Great privacy benefits and on chain savings, the things you people try to fight man. Get a fucking grip.
Bitcoin Mises · 7w
Yes. I supported it and regret it.
Jacob · 7w
AFAIK no one suspected Taproot to create this problem. This is from Luke in a debate. The problem was the city current core devs stopped fighting spam. But this should be a lesson of more careful development.
Bob Social, · 7w
Core must be ultra-conservative, btc is fine, change nothing until (we) the users and businesses are screaming for it🤔 when ...