@Bitcoin Mechanic, to expand on my last comment: the need for it to be temporary seems solely tied to the desire to disable unused segwit versions. I think there is a good case for not doing that. Specifically, policy already filters these transactions. If, as @Dathon Ohm is anticipating, spammers start using unused segwit versions, a successful soft fork would force Core’s hand and make them adopt the traditional stance on filters, if only to protect upgrade hooks. What are your thoughts on this?

Jan 6 was an op. Once you internalize this, your bafflement will cease.

Right but that pertains only to undefined witness versions. If you limit the BIP to OP_IF, OP_RETURN and output sizes in current witness versions, there would be no risk of HF or ossification. I understand that cutting off the current avenues for spam would incentivize use of undefined witness versions. But these are restricted by policy in both Core and Knots. If scammers migrate to v2+ we can force Core to take a stronger stand on policy, since they do really want to protect the upgrade hooks currently afforded by it.

Unfortunately, the problem is even a harder nut (pun intended) to crack. You can’t just will into existence a whole economy of services run by the small number of bitcoiners there are. Existing services must want to receive bitcoin instead of fiat. That is the most difficult missing piece, not solutions which will naturally follow. Until then, proper Bitcoin powered solutions like Cashu, which is perfect for 402 payments, will remain niche.

OpenClaw is not a “borderline obsolete AI model” for the simple reason that it’s not a model at all. TBH, I’m in a bit of a Gell-Mann Amnesia moment right now, as I have found what you have to say about China very interesting.

If you don’t want to buy peer-to-peer, you should try to buy your bitcoin from Bull Bitcoin, which has recently expanded into Europe. I use them in Canada and they are excellent.

I support the changes addressing contiguous data storage proposed in BIP-110. Specifically, disabling OP_IF in taproot, and limiting OP_RETURN and output sizes. I would support going further, by getting rid of OP_RETURN completely.

At the moment, I have two concerns that I hope you can address here or in one of your next videos:

1. Why make it temporary? It undermines the credibility of the changes and its expiration is “hard-forkish” in that the rules would be relaxed after expiration.

2. Why disable future witness versions? I think we have learned our lesson with SegWit and Taproot, and any proposed v2 will have to be evaluated for its potential for spam.

SegWit was fine, except for the witness discount. It was an unnecessary and ultimately pointless concession to the big blockers. Plus it did not achieve its stated objective (rationalization really) of incentivizing input destruction over output creation. Instead, it created a supply for otherwise useless block space that has been taken over by inscriptions.

If we didn’t have government, who would protect all the pedo psychos, amiright?

devolution through devaluation?