I still really like you Luke. Your recent podcast appearances were great and I hope you do more Bitcoin Infinity Show episodes with Knut soon. Congrats on the book release.
Thanks, I appreciate that!
I came to my position through writing Defending Bitcoin. I wrote a risk management book. I evaluate the risk of profoundly negative outcomes if BIP-110 causes a chain split to be too high.
Frankly, my real position might be that I support it after all (because I still mostly support the changes, I have specific technical objections that aren't direction ally important), but only if those signaling/enforcing drop it immediately if it looks like it's going to end up with a tiny minority of hash rate and just fork off.
In other words, try it, see what the outcome is, but don't cling to a dead-on-arrival fork if that's the result.
I believe Bitcoin will survive with or without BIP-110. The "with" scenario would be truly positive in my view. A user-activated rebuke of both arbitrary data and the prevailing governance structure. I'm all for that.
The "without" scenario is what I'm worried about. I don't want all the monetary maximalists to leave if this soft fork fails to activate and become the longest chain. I don't think making this an all-or-nothing effort is right. And, in the case of failure, there will be much gloating from on high and ridiculing of those who prefer less arbitrary data on Bitcoin and are uncomfortable with Core's governance.
In Defending Bitcoin itself, I don't even say "don't support BIP-110." I highlight the potential risks of a chain split, and say DYOR. Know what you're getting into.
At this point, I see that the momentum for BIP-110 is absolutely there. Almost half the plebs I met at BTC Prague said they were pro-110 or considering supporting it. The only opposition I heard was from devs. But there are also smart people in the space who support its goals but don't think it will activate. I'm in that camp too.
I don't know how to square these positions. My internal schelling point landed on not supporting BIP-110, but I'm not sure that's totally accurate anymore.
Perhaps more accurate would be that I support trying, but giving up quickly if it fails. The problem is that we're dealing with individuals. I have a feeling or even know that many people will either continue to support the minority chain or just give up on Bitcoin entirely.
This is kind of a chicken and egg problem now. If it's going to happen anyway, does my support or non-support make any real difference?
Either way, come August 7th, I'm still going to be here. And dealing with the fallout of BIP-110 being unsuccessful, if that's the case.
I don't know if that clarified anything for either of us. But those are my thoughts. Take them as you like.
I came to my position through writing Defending Bitcoin. I wrote a risk management book. I evaluate the risk of profoundly negative outcomes if BIP-110 causes a chain split to be too high.
Frankly, my real position might be that I support it after all (because I still mostly support the changes, I have specific technical objections that aren't direction ally important), but only if those signaling/enforcing drop it immediately if it looks like it's going to end up with a tiny minority of hash rate and just fork off.
In other words, try it, see what the outcome is, but don't cling to a dead-on-arrival fork if that's the result.
I believe Bitcoin will survive with or without BIP-110. The "with" scenario would be truly positive in my view. A user-activated rebuke of both arbitrary data and the prevailing governance structure. I'm all for that.
The "without" scenario is what I'm worried about. I don't want all the monetary maximalists to leave if this soft fork fails to activate and become the longest chain. I don't think making this an all-or-nothing effort is right. And, in the case of failure, there will be much gloating from on high and ridiculing of those who prefer less arbitrary data on Bitcoin and are uncomfortable with Core's governance.
In Defending Bitcoin itself, I don't even say "don't support BIP-110." I highlight the potential risks of a chain split, and say DYOR. Know what you're getting into.
At this point, I see that the momentum for BIP-110 is absolutely there. Almost half the plebs I met at BTC Prague said they were pro-110 or considering supporting it. The only opposition I heard was from devs. But there are also smart people in the space who support its goals but don't think it will activate. I'm in that camp too.
I don't know how to square these positions. My internal schelling point landed on not supporting BIP-110, but I'm not sure that's totally accurate anymore.
Perhaps more accurate would be that I support trying, but giving up quickly if it fails. The problem is that we're dealing with individuals. I have a feeling or even know that many people will either continue to support the minority chain or just give up on Bitcoin entirely.
This is kind of a chicken and egg problem now. If it's going to happen anyway, does my support or non-support make any real difference?
Either way, come August 7th, I'm still going to be here. And dealing with the fallout of BIP-110 being unsuccessful, if that's the case.
I don't know if that clarified anything for either of us. But those are my thoughts. Take them as you like.
1❤️1❤️1🤙1