Samson Mow
@Excellion
RT
@VIhnatiuk: I've been a OP_Return builder, and I know that data doesn't belong onchain. Yet, I'm still against BIP-110. I understand
@LukeDashjr's perspective: arbitrary data onchain is garbage, and that's a big part of why I moved to build
@utexocom on RGB (as client-side validation has minimal onchain impact). But
@adam3us and
@saylor are right about the remedy. If Bitcoin's value proposition is being a censorship-resistant neutral network, then policing other people's transactions goes against its own nature. Plus, it undermines the very monetary use case the proposal claims to defend. All Bitcoin's transactions are equal, but BIP-110 wants some to be more equal than others. It sets a dangerous precedent. Splitting the chain and spreading liquidity between two forks wouldn't lead to any desirable outcome. B
@VIhnatiuk: I've been a OP_Return builder, and I know that data doesn't belong onchain. Yet, I'm still against BIP-110. I understand
@LukeDashjr's perspective: arbitrary data onchain is garbage, and that's a big part of why I moved to build
@utexocom on RGB (as client-side validation has minimal onchain impact). But
@adam3us and
@saylor are right about the remedy. If Bitcoin's value proposition is being a censorship-resistant neutral network, then policing other people's transactions goes against its own nature. Plus, it undermines the very monetary use case the proposal claims to defend. All Bitcoin's transactions are equal, but BIP-110 wants some to be more equal than others. It sets a dangerous precedent. Splitting the chain and spreading liquidity between two forks wouldn't lead to any desirable outcome. B
@VIhnatiuk
I've been a OP_Return builder, and I know that data doesn't belong onchain.
Yet, I'm still against BIP-110.
I understand @LukeDashjr's perspective: arbitrary data onchain is garbage, and that's a big part of why I moved to build @utexocom on RGB (as client-side validation has minimal onchain impact).
But @adam3us and @saylor are right about the remedy.
If Bitcoin's value proposition is being a censorship-resistant neutral network, then policing other people's transactions goes against its own nature.
Plus, it undermines the very monetary use case the proposal claims to defend.
All Bitcoin's transactions are equal, but BIP-110 wants some to be more equal than others. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Splitting the chain and spreading liquidity between two forks wouldn't lead to any desirable outcome.
Bitcoin's liquidity is deep enough that markets would form for both.
But that would just replay the movie we already saw in 2018 during the BSV wars with Craig Wright: opponents threatening to dump prices by selling the other side's tokens.
(Interestingly, even after being dead for 8 years, BSV still has enough market cap to keep the zombie coin trading.)
@Excellion said it well this week: Bitcoiners should start to see themselves as an Alliance that can survive disagreement.
We may share different views on how some things should be done, but in the end we’re all working towards the same goal: making Bitcoin win.
Given that <1% of miners support the proposal, the community has already made its choice.
The bigger problem is that everyone is arguing about what to keep off Bitcoin, when the bigger story is what's coming onto it.
USDT has ~570M users. Bitcoin has ~365M.
It’s a clean 1.5x by simply adding one asset.
The largest user base in crypto is coming to the motherchain. It's our best shot at making Bitcoin work as what it was created to be: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
We want people to use Bitcoin, not just hold $BTC.
Bitcoiners don't want to spend their sats: they need an asset they're actually happy to spend, with Bitcoin's security guarantees underneath.
USDT is coming home, and we won't get another chance like this.
Let’s not waste it.
