If custodians become normalized because of a technical failing, and the Bitcoin culture continues to reject anything that might fix it (good technical reasons to reject are fine, but not nontechnical "just use a custodian" reasons)
These are the conditions under which I would hard fork.
but I'm patient though
but fuck you if this is your vision of the future.
https://stacker.news/items/648976/r/nerd2ninja
quotingYou've been scammed...
nevent1q…4kk7
When Satoshi elimated "trusted central 3rd party" from money, he wasn't talking about self custody.
- he was talking about the base layer of money, and solving the Byzantine General's Problem.
- that is, if there are two transactions spending the same money (double spending), how do we know which is first (and valid), and which one gets rejected?
Normally for a digital money, a coordinator for the order of txs has always been needed, and Satoshi solved that and eliminated the central coordinator (using PoW, blocks, and a consensus algorithm).
How some people made this about p2p payments (ie no "evil" custodial banking or transaction networks) is unclear.
People who cry about the fact that all humans won't able to transact p2p on the base layer have been captured by this narrative and forgot what Bitcoin is for - to eliminate the scourge of central banking from humanity.
Central banking, not banking!
They accept risk of changing Bitcoin because they think it'll be a failure otherwise - forgetting the primary objective is going to be a success.
Sure, p2p transfer is by design in Bitcoin, but it's not going to be possible for every human.
That problem has never been solved - shitcoins that claim it's possible accepted a trade off (decentralisation), they didn't actually SOLVE it.
I don't support tinkering with Bitcoin to achieve secondary gains, risking the first priority.
This is why we should activate OP_GFY.