pull down to refresh
it forces purists to choose between aggressive protocol intervention or letting the chain bloat.
This is the real joke of it all. OP_0 OP_IF in p2sh scriptsigs will simply thrive on a BIP-110 upgraded chain. The only way I see that not happening is if there is a permanent fork and the BIP-110 side fails to overtake the ossified version in exchange rate. Then, the BIP-110 can have their utopian version of Bitcoin, in isolation.
OP_0 OP_IF in p2sh scriptsigs will simply thrive on a BIP-110 upgraded chain.At least that wouldn't benefit from the witness discount.
All these flags are so visible and open just look for Saylors and politicians being the party interested in directing the spirits of something they do not control, but that make it seem like they do. Every nocoiner comes across them when he enters the bitcoin universe, the amount of shit about bitcoin sold on the common network is abundant. Now there are those to divided those who pass through without paying attention for the shit.
I feel dense, but whose is the hidden hand?
That's by design, both camps...
That's what I want to know. Conspiracy theories are great but ultimately useless. Let's define the camps. Who are the actors and what are their motivations? Shadowy cabals are great and all but I'd really like to hear the specifics.
Going out on a limb here: there aren't any specifics.
Both camps are just masses of people with various motivations acting and reacting to an ever changing landscape of ideas and convictions. Bitcoin mururations (ref: starlings) if you will.
*murmurations
Yep, misspelled that one for sure.
Conspiracies aren't theories, they are facts, a predictable outcome of incentives
Where there is an incentive to organize to effect change, there is an organization working to effect change
masses of people with various motivations acting and reacting
Conspiracy is a mode of action, psyops are used to illicit reaction
The lines between intelligence agencies and industry are blurry, same way that industries use regulation to protect against competition. The government is just a giant corporation where industry colludes.
If the large entities get their way and enable Bitcoin delegation, it gives leverage to their existing systems of control.
Think withdrawing your Bitcoin from an exchange, if they use covenants they can revoke your coin after you've withdrawn or make sure you don't send it to someone they don't like... Fake L2's getting acquired by the big banks... Stablecoins that trace back to your Bitcoin stack after you sell on a "DEX"... coordinators everywhere conducting surveillance...
The possibilities with covenants are endless, none of them good.
That's by design, both camps are funded by the same hidden hand, the one pushing for covenants
Both camps exist to be divided such that when their leaders get the unification signal there will be few unfactioned left to resist.
This is observable in how BIP-110 forces a wedge directly into the conservative faction of Bitcoin. By making BIP-110 a "User-Activated Soft Fork" (UASF), it forces purists to choose between aggressive protocol intervention or letting the chain bloat. The Result being the unified front against base-layer changes is broken.
Once the taboo of forcing a soft fork via minority signaling is normalized, the psychological barrier to activating covenants is completely gone. The precedent changes from never changing the base layer to changing it when the base layer when the crisis is big enough.