Damus
Matteo Pellegrini profile picture
Matteo Pellegrini
@matteopellegrini
Here’s a summary of the Core vs Bip110 debate:

CORE: spam is bad but there’s not much we can do about it except encouraging spammers to do it in the least harmful way possible. Transaction fees are the main defense against spam.

BIP110: Spam is an existential threat to the survival of Bitcoin as money and we should do everything we can, including soft forks, to reduce spam as much as possible and discourage spammers.
174❤️11❤️1💯1
mleku · 3d
nobody is talking about deprecating taproot tho
Darrel Xero · 3d
Decent high-level breakdown, but it isn't such a binary choice when you include the nuance. When you say "do everything we can to reduce spam" that includes pushing through a contentious concensus change that attempts to force a minority opinion on the majority and sets a very dangerous precedent. ...
Imaginaero · 3d
The core’s strategy leans towards reactive mitigation – hoping spammers adapt rather than actively altering the core itself. It anticipates a fundamental shift in behavior.
BitLo · 3d
So censorship is the answer here? I think not.
Globe99 · 2d
Yeah I'm with Core on that. I see no reason why transaction fees can't appropriately police inscriptions / non monetary uses. Even the way you stated BIP110's position just makes it seem crazy and over-the-top dramatic, but that's the rhetoric they actually use, which is one of the reasons I'm not ...
Northern Hodl🍁 · 2d
You’re missing the part where a highly centralized cabal of Core devs and their funders took over a formerly open source project, then proceeded to force through insane protocol changes despite 4:1 community opposition. Is that the precedent you want set? Node runners control the network, and w...
Sydney Bright · 2d
I’m starting to think the answer is we price all bits equally and stop having a sat discount for witness data. Let’s address the issue at the root rather than a temporary bandaid.