Are we THAT early ?

It's funny because I can't see most of your posts since you just repost people I've blocked

Impressive answer.
Is it worse than not having it though ?
Could you add in your URSF a consensus level limitation of OP_RETURN ? Or fork BIP110 with your own fix ? There are other less disruptive solutions I believe.

How did this happen ? Turbo Knotzi, suddenly misses the plot ? Is this an ego thing with BIP110 not taking your fix ?
Your actions have consequences, you're forcing an unnecessary chainsplit. You know BIP110 will be legacy, why hurt the network like that ? You can still roll back.. for now

Yes, more chaos because it will force an unnecessary chain split.

That's interesting. So if BIP110 activates on August/September with less then 55% of miners, your URSF won't ? Or do you consider it will have to be the legacy chain ?

BTW, I can't stress enough the fact that doing a URSF here is highly irresponsible. Given your track record as a respectable developer, why not create another UASF that is less constraining than BIP110, maybe simply one that only reduces OP_RETURN ?

You do understand that Bitcoin is under an existential threat until AT LEAST OP_RETURN gets fixed ? And if no other options are proposed, BIP110 will fork off and become the legacy chain.

Could use the Parmanode style :

🙋

YES

Read the new testament first. And pray God relentlessly to give you faith, only He can give it to you. May God bless you in your journey.

52