I’m a financial advisor and I enjoyed your Dao of Bitcoin book. Looking forward to listening to this one.

About 6 minutes.

Depends on how long that payment lasts. For 10 years, I’ll take the bitcoin. For 5 years, I’ll take USD.

I definitely do not support abuse material and I think we need to continue to try to keep it off the blockchain.

However, if the choice is between shutting Bitcoin down or keeping a Bitcoin network that has unwanted images, I choose keeping Bitcoin alive.

It’s a similar debate as the 2nd amendment rights. There are going to be some gun deaths if guns are legal but it would be much worse if guns were outlawed.

@Newcoiner #Blake2b-or-Bust isn’t that how a free market works?

To go along with your analogy- Yes, you get fired and then get a higher paying job somewhere else. Miners were fired by BIP-110 and are getting paid way more by the legacy chain.

I get that. The good thing is that Bitcoin isn’t a democracy. It’s the free market.

I do. It would be much less likely for them to ignore 90% of nodes. At that point, there’s the risk that 90% of the network follows a proof of work change, sells all their “bitcoin” and buys “bip-110coin”. There’s no risk of that now. Bitcoin price barely moved after bip-110 failed. I would have loved for bip-110 to succeed but it’s done. Let’s learn from this. If we want a change, we need more economic support in the form of more plebs mining or buying hash rate.

I was a BIP-110 supporter and I’m returning to the legacy chain.

I would have liked the miners to flip the bit to signal for BIP-110 but it’s not worth it at this point. Here’s why:

BIP-110 didn’t fail because bitcoin is captured. It failed because there wasn’t enough support for BIP-110.

Less than 20% of nodes were running it. Much less hashrate was supporting it.

I want to try to draw a parallel to the physical world:
If the people of the Midwest decide they want to tighten the rules for the entire USA, why would the USA make that change if they don’t feel the need to.

The people of the Midwest say “We’re going to enforce these rules across the country and we think you should too.”

The rest of the country says, “How are you going to enforce that?”

The Midwest says, “Well, we’re all going to enforce it in the Midwest and about 15% of us have guns.”

The country says, “How are you going to enforce that if you only make up 20% of the entire USA and only 15% of you have guns?”

The Midwest says, “Just watch, everyone else will enforce it, so you should too.”

My point is that if you want to make a change, you have to make some sacrifice. In the physical world people make sacrifices for change by putting themselves at risk both physically and financially. Not enough BIP-110 supporters really put any skin in the game.

They ran BIP-110 nodes but they didn’t have enough conviction to put enough money into buying hashrate and mining bitcoin to actually enforce it.

Back to my analogy, it would be like the Midwest saying, “We’re not going to spend any money on guns because we think the rest of the country who owns guns will enforce our rule, even though they said they won’t.”

It doesn’t mean miners are completely in control of bitcoin. Less than 20% of nodes were running BIP-110 and miners ignored it. It was the more conservative thing to do.

If 55% of nodes were running BIP-110, I don’t think miners would ignore it, even if hashrate was initially low.

The whole BIP-110 movement was really about resisting centralization. It wasn’t about spam. It was that high rates of spam and arbitrary data would make noderunning more difficult and lead to centralization.

At this point, now that BIP 110 is the minority chain, they're much more centralized than the legacy chain. the whole point of BIP 110 was to stop centralization and now BIP 110 is more centralized.