Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My...

78e3e1a1b2c4b440...

npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625r

hex

36d4b7c24ad1b474138340a0aebfc4a6a0311eb1f0f36ef1bd5dc927f27dc495

nevent

nevent1qqsrd49hcf9drdr5zwp5pg9whlz2dgp3r6clpumw7x74mjf87f7uf9gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgs83clp5xevfdzq3525k7jx6rksynqhf3n72ze7f66q2a55gkwey8cw0s0jz

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-02-25T09:09:21Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

0c99fcff15979147aa7a85cf63bc5c89c9789af8422154d1bcd7010dd01205fa...

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.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "36d4b7c24ad1b474138340a0aebfc4a6a0311eb1f0f36ef1bd5dc927f27dc495",
  "pubkey": "78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
  "created_at": 1772010561,
  "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"
}