Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My issues are:
- The restrictions are too aggressive and hurts moneraty use cases and scaling solutions, even though the authors are not fully honnest about this.
- Among other issues, the proposal blocks any further upgrade to the consensus, which we will need to improve scaling through Ark & Lightning. (imagine if it were to last...)
- I don't believe a temporary fix makes sense considering the risks that come with changing the consensus, I don't want Bitcoin to go for Monero-like yearly updates/debates.
- Moreover, temporary already implies the solution is known to suck, and no good solution is available yet. I prefer to wait for a proper fix and activate that.
I think it would be more sensible to go for straightfoward, atomic, consensual fixes and respect the process of convincing the community more widely, as previously accepted forks did. Of course it won't be possible to go as far in terms of restricting spam, but it will also avoid stupidely hurting our owns.
Hide&Seek
npub10r…3625r
2026-02-25 09:09:21 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…g0mc
Author Public Key
npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625rPublished at
2026-02-25 09:09:21 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "36d4b7c24ad1b474138340a0aebfc4a6a0311eb1f0f36ef1bd5dc927f27dc495",
"pubkey": "78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
"created_at": 1772010561,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"472f440f29ef996e92a186b8d320ff180c855903882e59d50de1b8bd5669301e",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"7f177706ad6e0aea75a9e3345d9ffdae67676faff249be657b596375e1ced391",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"fdd5e8f6ae0db817be0b71da20498c1806968d8a6459559c249f322fa73464a7",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"1b4632fb7a2c7a1de118b010a8aa2bd6eb17c8823471967a4785d86b27766f1c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0c99fcff15979147aa7a85cf63bc5c89c9789af8422154d1bcd7010dd01205fa",
"",
"reply"
]
],
"content": "Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My issues are:\n\n- The restrictions are too aggressive and hurts moneraty use cases and scaling solutions, even though the authors are not fully honnest about this.\n- Among other issues, the proposal blocks any further upgrade to the consensus, which we will need to improve scaling through Ark \u0026 Lightning. (imagine if it were to last...)\n- I don't believe a temporary fix makes sense considering the risks that come with changing the consensus, I don't want Bitcoin to go for Monero-like yearly updates/debates.\n- Moreover, temporary already implies the solution is known to suck, and no good solution is available yet. I prefer to wait for a proper fix and activate that. \n\nI think it would be more sensible to go for straightfoward, atomic, consensual fixes and respect the process of convincing the community more widely, as previously accepted forks did. Of course it won't be possible to go as far in terms of restricting spam, but it will also avoid stupidely hurting our owns.",
"sig": "a0ea32a63151ccfbb6537834433ed043590d76ae669ad77adf3ff3965860b67a41adbab591afbdff14d46fba614c9109946c0ccc4835a1c58a918ba1813f9f8f"
}