Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the change proposed in BIP110.

So why not roll back both and slow down?

Take the time to develop serious solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them thoroughly. Compare the trade-offs honestly. Then, in one or two years, decide which path truly makes sense for Bitcoin.

As long as Core refuses to reverse its change, I feel pushed toward supporting the fork. We clearly have a spam problem and spam harms Bitcoin in multiple ways. Ignoring it is not a strategy. Pretending it has no meaningful impact is the wrong approach. If the change were rolled back, I would be willing to give the process more time.

I do not see this as an immediate emergency. But failing to address the issue and signaling that spam will simply be tolerated will only accelerate the problem. That is not a direction Bitcoin should move toward.

Thanks for the podcast. I agree with almost everything.
One more specific point I would add: every additional development on Bitcoin increases complexity and with it the risk of errors. Each new layer makes us more dependent on developers, on how they interpret the code, and how they assess trade-offs.
The more complex the system becomes, the harder it is for the network as a whole to evaluate changes and make sound decisions. At the same time, the attack surface grows, both technically and socially. Greater dependency also increases the risk of capture or undue influence.

In that sense, a simple and clearly defined protocol is not stagnation. It is protection.

https://fountain.fm/episode/1t4C7RMHfzQQn4oxbREU

History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally.

The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses.

Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low.

This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction.

One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable.

These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest.

This post is inspired by the newest video from @Bitcoin Mechanic
Best regards, I appreciate your content.

As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit.

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability.

The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future.

https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4