55% instead of 95%.
Attempting to “pick outcomes” and make previously valid transactions invalid. Not narrative, just observations.
Enjoy your attack on bitcoin. What future transactions will you guys want to invalidate?

Any valid transaction should be includable in a block. Arbitrary bans of “undesirable” data (like BRC-20 and Ordinals) are subjective. Why not address spam through direct economic mechanisms (e.g. fees)? BIP 110 is subjective censorship. It weakens bitcoin as money.

What other transactions will you want to censor in the future?

Rent free

This kinda said it all. What a roadmap. lol

ETH roadmap. LOL

Nope.

Bitcoin is more than money, similar to the way the birth of America was more than just an offshoot of Great Britain without a monarch.

I want Bitcoin to become THE preferred money too, but “money or nothing” is smoothbrain FUD.

It’s market price reflects multiple narratives at once. Speculation, macro hedging, technological belief, and yes, payment adoption.

Your premise is that Bitcoin’s value comes from expectations it will become money. Your conclusion is if it doesn’t become money, it has no value. This doesn’t prove the premise, it just restates it. It ignores other potential sources of value (e.g., scarcity, censorship resistance, use as collateral, etc).

Furthermore, we have been in bitcoin long enough to know that it morphs based on other things happening in the world (financial crises, pandemics, global censorship campaigns, debanking, birth of AI, oil wars, and so on into the future).

BIP 110 is trying to do something that decentralization is bad at on purpose, which is to pick a specific outcome on a shared schedule.

I’m continually surprised how confident its supporters are in their proclamations around having arrived at the correct “solutions” to things the community/market doesn’t even agree on as “problems.”

The lack of humility is as scary as the poorly thought out “solutions.”

Why do people want all the short bus normies from the “platform internet” to come to this protocol? Seriously, I’m looking to understand the answer. It would immediately make Nostr suck. And we are not here for engagement farming and misery harvesting (which is what why X and those other platforms exist).

The early internet was much cooler when not everyone was on it. When it was decentralized protocols rather than monolithic platforms.

Nostr has always felt like that to me. Fun, limited/small, and generally smarter. I cannot understand the widely held desire to get everybody on Nostr. It’s not a centralized platform dependent on growth for its continuing existence. Over time, it will probably happen anyway, but what’s the rush?

Tether is the Death Star