Bram Kanstein

Some will flame me but whatever. I put BIP110 in Claude and am asking it to answer my questions and help me understand it. 2 important findings: 1. It basically agrees with it technically. And when I read it I am ok with a temporary (this is important) period of this soft fork to have time to "figure out something sustainable" (against spam). Ok I am on board conceptually. 2. Spammers will adapt. There are other technical ways to spam. This starts an arms race, cat/mouse game. Visible/invisible spam makes it harder and harder to detect... the blockchain size keeps rising despite these efforts. We stay in a perpetual trap and discussion and strife that asks for an extension of the "temporary" soft fork. Hold up. Bitcoin's whole value proposition rests on the idea that its rules are extraordinarily hard to change. Not impossible, but hard enough that you can build a hundred-year savings plan on top of them. So every activation mechanism is implicitly answering the question: how hard should it be to change Bitcoin And 95% versus 55% are two very different answers. It said: "the activation mechanics (55%, mandatory signaling) are where I'd expect the fiercest fight, because that's not just about spam anymore. That's about how Bitcoin changes itself." ... "The justification given (for 55% signaling) is that it's temporary and urgent. But you can see why this is the part people fight about, right? The threshold isn't just a technical parameter, it's a statement about how much agreement you need before changing Bitcoin's rules." 2 things I see: 55% is not 51% (attack), but boy is that close? What happens to an emergent money that is engineered truth of which it's most important task is to stay consistent, constant, predictable, immutable, and thus trustworthy when it is in a perpetual fight? Is that positive? Many wanted me to think. Here's my thinking. Maybe I am too rational. Maybe I am an idiot. I have another positive/negative read attached. "imagine the same playbook used for something else: a "temporary emergency" fork for compliance reasons, or transaction filtering that a slim majority supports under regulatory pressure. "It's temporary, it's urgent, we only need 55%, non-signalers get orphaned" is a template, and templates get reused." Please share your thoughts. Thank you.

New Destino set premieres tonight at 7PM CEST! 🔰🫱🏻‍🫲🏼

Some will flame me but whatever. I put BIP110 in Claude and am asking it to answer my questions and help me understand it. 2 important findings: 1. It basically agrees with it technically. And when I read it I am ok with a temporary (this is important) period of this soft fork to have time to "figure out something sustainable" (against spam). Ok I am on board conceptually. 2. Spammers will adapt. There are other technical ways to spam. This starts an arms race, cat/mouse game. Visible/invisible spam makes it harder and harder to detect... the blockchain size keeps rising despite these efforts. We stay in a perpetual trap and discussion and strife that asks for an extension of the "temporary" soft fork. Hold up. Bitcoin's whole value proposition rests on the idea that its rules are extraordinarily hard to change. Not impossible, but hard enough that you can build a hundred-year savings plan on top of them. So every activation mechanism is implicitly answering the question: how hard should it be to change Bitcoin And 95% versus 55% are two very different answers. It said: "the activation mechanics (55%, mandatory signaling) are where I'd expect the fiercest fight, because that's not just about spam anymore. That's about how Bitcoin changes itself." ... "The justification given (for 55% signaling) is that it's temporary and urgent. But you can see why this is the part people fight about, right? The threshold isn't just a technical parameter, it's a statement about how much agreement you need before changing Bitcoin's rules." 2 things I see: 55% is not 51% (attack), but boy is that close? What happens to an emergent money that is engineered truth of which it's most important task is to stay consistent, constant, predictable, immutable, and thus trustworthy when it is in a perpetual fight? Is that positive? Many wanted me to think. Here's my thinking. Maybe I am too rational. Maybe I am an idiot. I have another positive/negative read attached. "imagine the same playbook used for something else: a "temporary emergency" fork for compliance reasons, or transaction filtering that a slim majority supports under regulatory pressure. "It's temporary, it's urgent, we only need 55%, non-signalers get orphaned" is a template, and templates get reused." Please share your thoughts. Thank you.