Actually I think a peaceful resolution is the most likley path.
The BIP has had wide review, and there is not community appetite for it at this time. There are some holes in it imho, they could tweak the proposal and come up with something better. But it might have to be a new group that pushes it.
Rightly or wrongly, 80% of the btc community is against it. There's just no way you can reverse that anytime soon. Even if you got 80% to switch, and I dont think anyone can do that, you still have enough to block it. Bear in mind you only need 6% consensus to veto all new side chains. There's a million ways to stop it, if it is the will of the community.
They wont get MASF, and even if they did, what then? You're really going to take on a $500 Bn eco system that doesnt want something with a bunch of nervious miners that dont really want to get involved in a war. Saylor on the mining committee has come out against.
Any hard fork would be crushed in a heartbeat. The trolling will die down, it will get blocked or diluted.
The BIP has been educational and asked some interesting questions. I even added a constructive proposal that might fix Paul's broken game theory. We will get stratumv2 in time, and many flavours of side chains I'm sure, and also strategies to help with the security budget.
Playing with the dials here is fun, and shows that between now and 2032 there is work to be done in hardening the tail emssion. It's good for everyone because higher security leads to higher price, and a longer life for bitcoin. Something that everyone wants.
https://www.btcsecuritybudget.com/
melvincarvalho / Melvin Carvalho
npub1me…t5c24
2023-09-04 21:50:04
in reply to nevent1q…ffkm
Author Public Key
npub1melv683fw6n2mvhl5h6dhqd8mqfv3wmxnz4qph83ua4dk4006ezsrt5c24Published at
2023-09-04 21:50:04Event JSON
{
"id": "5e32e9a6d0d48f5551b5f5e47345d471a27bcb623039ed4f1cf7b61cbe0e8a4f",
"pubkey": "de7ecd1e2976a6adb2ffa5f4db81a7d812c8bb6698aa00dcf1e76adb55efd645",
"created_at": 1693864204,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d1a7d2627ff22dbacae4afd332ae583847ab18ab7844ef9cf2623ac9f7437a23",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7b3f7803750746f455413a221f80965eecb69ef308f2ead1da89cc2c8912e968"
]
],
"content": "Actually I think a peaceful resolution is the most likley path.\n\nThe BIP has had wide review, and there is not community appetite for it at this time. There are some holes in it imho, they could tweak the proposal and come up with something better. But it might have to be a new group that pushes it.\n\nRightly or wrongly, 80% of the btc community is against it. There's just no way you can reverse that anytime soon. Even if you got 80% to switch, and I dont think anyone can do that, you still have enough to block it. Bear in mind you only need 6% consensus to veto all new side chains. There's a million ways to stop it, if it is the will of the community.\n\nThey wont get MASF, and even if they did, what then? You're really going to take on a $500 Bn eco system that doesnt want something with a bunch of nervious miners that dont really want to get involved in a war. Saylor on the mining committee has come out against.\n\nAny hard fork would be crushed in a heartbeat. The trolling will die down, it will get blocked or diluted.\n\nThe BIP has been educational and asked some interesting questions. I even added a constructive proposal that might fix Paul's broken game theory. We will get stratumv2 in time, and many flavours of side chains I'm sure, and also strategies to help with the security budget.\n\nPlaying with the dials here is fun, and shows that between now and 2032 there is work to be done in hardening the tail emssion. It's good for everyone because higher security leads to higher price, and a longer life for bitcoin. Something that everyone wants.\n\nhttps://www.btcsecuritybudget.com/",
"sig": "cefd28f80cbad30e10be8b20bdc5028a17ff1ffec7777ee94468906445f2e52bca313916c99f9fd86f1503e3bc6f5d28c531040c222bcd080ae16def6fc85c96"
}