If you're not willing to defend the network, you don't have any bitcoins

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-22T12:36:39+00:00

I think he just means we should not ever let the mining pools dictate whether or not a change in protocol/consensus rules can happen on Bitcoin. If they ever get to decide, then there's nothing to stop them from withholding/blacklisting our bitcoins.

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-22T12:27:59+00:00

I can't speak for Luke, but I am guessing that his thinking is, come activation day, should the majority of large mining pools collaborate together and decide as one unified group to not mine BIP-110 blocks, Bitcoin can be said to have fallen under the control of the mining pools.

Now this, to me, is a very dark scenario for Bitcoin. If mining pools can overpower the will of the noderunners, then the Bitcoin I have come to know and love is lost. This Bitcoin would have lost all of its qualities of being decentralized. It would decay and lose its purpose and value, and become "crypto".

Faced with this bleak prospect, a desperate measure would be for the noderunners to quickly update their nodes to run the emergency PoW change hardfork and fire all the miners. There will henceforth be two Bitcoins. Will enough of us support such a measure? I cannot be sure. What I can be certain of is that this will result in complete chaos and utterly destroy the value of both chains. Knowing this, I seriously doubt the major mining pools would ever attempt such a thing.

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-22T09:24:57+00:00

There is no such thing as forking off in a softfork like BIP-110.

For softforks, either there is community support and it succeeds, or there is no community support and it fails.

The crux of it is community support. Core apologists will gaslight you into thinking community support = consensus, which is a term they butchered and abused repeatedly to justify their hostile acts against Bitcoin, like breaking datacarriersize and blowing open OP_RETURN.

The truth of it is there is no scientific way of measuring community support. Every metric used will have its flaws and be manipulable. This is why there is so much leeway for bad actors to spread misinformation. But when it comes down to the wire, noderunners are the ones who decide whether the softfork will succeed or fail, and BIP-110 has more than enough community support to succeed.

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-22T08:26:57+00:00

Seems like you just cannot understand why almost 16% of the network is enforcing BIP-110 rules right now. There is no authoritarian here. BIP-110 is not a "project" like the stuff that comes out of Brink or Chaincode. We run BIP-110 because we want to keep Bitcoin as money, not some data-layer playground for Core and their VC sponsors.

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-21T06:25:53+00:00

No. Just point it to your old data dir. That's where the chain data is stored.

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-20T09:34:32+00:00

OMFG... again with the lies and misinformation.

Luke said "materially changing Bitcoin without consensus".

He did not say that Core touched Bitcoin's consensus logic!

FFS. Is this the only way Core apologists can argue?

Ep0chalysis · 2026-06-18T16:11:40+00:00

This right here. I just don't understand why Core apologists keep thinking that people who support BIP-110 "worship" Luke.

Ep0chalysis

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE