Thanks for the reply. I was on the BIP110 side so I wouldn't...

epsql

npub1zhmsa0fs76dctwag0slvg4j9xqxu9q66dkkzxh7ls9pu4d0f9qkqgvs67x

hex

6c28323797e838b06feaada603b6470f83f3549c6c0b8626878599c0fe156e7a

nevent

nevent1qqsxc2pjx7t7sw9sdl42mfsrkerslqln2jwxczuxy6rctxwqlc2ku7sprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsptacwh5c0dxu9hw58c0ky2eznqrwzsddxmtprtl0czs72kh5jstqlzkamz

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-08-22T16:58:27Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

7ed599854ca494cb882cfa4b34b5338184509144de998a8f109e2343664b251f...

Thanks for the reply. I was on the BIP110 side so I wouldn't say I'm unaware of real and potential issues that the Bitcoin network might currently have.

I agree that claiming that we've won already and all of that is nonsense. However, with this premise of out the way, I think my note was quite objective to the best of my understanding. The "influencers" on the BIP110 side are, in my opinion, conveniently misrepresenting how power dynamics work in Bitcoin since its inception and they're claiming instead that the network is no longer decentralized because a soft fork with a tiny amount of hashpower backing it failed to become consensus for the broader network. I really don't see how this having happened in the way if did disproves anything, regardless of Bitcoin being already captured or not.

Are we relying on a bunch of friendly miners to change consensus rules in the way we want? This is not a realistic strategy as we have just witnessed.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "6c28323797e838b06feaada603b6470f83f3549c6c0b8626878599c0fe156e7a",
  "pubkey": "15f70ebd30f69b85bba87c3ec45645300dc2835a6dac235fdf8143cab5e9282c",
  "created_at": 1787417907,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "65adf3ee643473901339d99ca90a8cba6a8f9a465c4813e9023aecbcf0a4c12d",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "f985d309197c805e1719c73185b574fc3ee407d7c1b6157dee99c6ace2599bbb",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "15f70ebd30f69b85bba87c3ec45645300dc2835a6dac235fdf8143cab5e9282c",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "c1831fbe2653f76164421d57db6cee38b8cef8ce6771bc65c12f8543de4b39bf",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "000023a07d5d400cbe69557d546aa9203ec616b0df332e8fb10b9de81bcd0d89",
      "",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "7ed599854ca494cb882cfa4b34b5338184509144de998a8f109e2343664b251f",
      "",
      "reply"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Thanks for the reply. I was on the BIP110 side so I wouldn't say I'm unaware of real and potential issues that the Bitcoin network might currently have.\n\nI agree that claiming that we've won already and all of that is nonsense. However, with this premise of out the way, I think my note was quite objective to the best of my understanding. The \"influencers\" on the BIP110 side are, in my opinion, conveniently misrepresenting how power dynamics work in Bitcoin since its inception and they're claiming instead that the network is no longer decentralized because a soft fork with a tiny amount of hashpower backing it failed to become consensus for the broader network. I really don't see how this having happened in the way if did disproves anything, regardless of Bitcoin being already captured or not.\n\nAre we relying on a bunch of friendly miners to change consensus rules in the way we want? This is not a realistic strategy as we have just witnessed.",
  "sig": "5654d6c43718b91d7f82d0e56b5de02e0fa39925af550a9bb1da987451a05f0fe9cefe962f6e48b194f455b920097f35e08800f3c7f07471a1ba791b1463230d"
}