Post B3cgEBevkOFtlIrz4y by 1408bad049bab8a38b976075affe413c3521bbeef62cc4ce3555299f4971f2ca@mostr.pub
 (DIR) More posts by 1408bad049bab8a38b976075affe413c3521bbeef62cc4ce3555299f4971f2ca@mostr.pub
 (DIR) Post #B3cgE7fUaMKPNt6NOq by 04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9@mostr.pub
       2026-02-20T15:06:53.000Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       bip110 is not about stopping spam.it wont stop spam.bip110 is about ego and control for mechanic and luke.so they riled up a mob to try to push through a hostile fork of bitcoin giving them complete control.when the fork fails they will try to threaten miners into a chain reorg. reversing thousands of bitcoin payments in the process.it is an attack on bitcoin and it will fail.bitcoin is the best money. if you care about it then reject reckless forks.
       
 (DIR) Post #B3cgE8xbmUPhOMaMHA by 4c6dc9e2c016e06e354d4e8173e3414adef702ffeeb0727e343edb5cf3cf3aa9@mostr.pub
       2026-02-21T00:13:13.000Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       You are fighting a windmill Matt.   "Wont stop spam"  is a strawman/nirvana double fallacy.  BIP110 's purpose has never been to stop spam.  It RATE LIMITS spam as a bonus good to have second order effect.  But its real purpose is that by activating it Bitcoin will  assert in the clearest  strongest way possible (which is set it in consensus) that it's only valid usecase is to be MONEY and not arbitrary data storage.   This has been repeated ad nauseum.   Don't you agree with the premise?
       
 (DIR) Post #B3cgEA9LMLOX535FCq by 1408bad049bab8a38b976075affe413c3521bbeef62cc4ce3555299f4971f2ca@mostr.pub
       2026-02-21T06:40:09.000Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       The problem is you don't have concensus... 🥴
       
 (DIR) Post #B3cgEAzSEb4vgfSrQm by fdd5e8f6ae0db817be0b71da20498c1806968d8a6459559c249f322fa73464a7@mostr.pub
       2026-02-21T06:40:49.000Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Softforks almost never have consensus.RDTS has more than sufficient support, though.
       
 (DIR) Post #B3cgEBevkOFtlIrz4y by 1408bad049bab8a38b976075affe413c3521bbeef62cc4ce3555299f4971f2ca@mostr.pub
       2026-02-21T06:44:01.000Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Thats not true though is it... every soft fork until now signalled clear majority concensus.  70%+ nodes run Core, so to propose a softfork like this is ridiculous and is by definition a contentious fork...
       
 (DIR) Post #B3cgECQ4v5yA7WvdZI by fdd5e8f6ae0db817be0b71da20498c1806968d8a6459559c249f322fa73464a7@mostr.pub
       2026-02-21T06:44:34.000Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Consensus is 100%, not a majority.And ~60% support RDTS.