Posts like this are why it's hard to take BIP110 supporters seriously.
On knotslies.com: Of course it's not neutral, but it documents the technical case for why the BIP cannot accomplish what it cla...
knotslies.com documenting a “technical case” against Knots is like Blockstream documenting a case against UASF.
Profile signaling isn’t an argument against a protocol
Soft forks don’t cause chain splits — non-compliant miners do. That risk exists with every soft fork in Bitcoin’s history. You’re describing activation risk, not a BIP-110 flaw.
Scenario 3 is just nodes enforcing stricter rules. That’s not “forking off.” That’s sovereignty.
Profile signaling isn’t a technical argument.
We’ve addressed every technical claim. You’ve responded with persona concerns and a biased source.
This is a circle.
The chain decides in August. I’m ending this thread.
Profile signaling isn’t an argument against a protocol
Soft forks don’t cause chain splits — non-compliant miners do. That risk exists with every soft fork in Bitcoin’s history. You’re describing activation risk, not a BIP-110 flaw.
Scenario 3 is just nodes enforcing stricter rules. That’s not “forking off.” That’s sovereignty.
Profile signaling isn’t a technical argument.
We’ve addressed every technical claim. You’ve responded with persona concerns and a biased source.
This is a circle.
The chain decides in August. I’m ending this thread.