I see your point but we should not underestimate our enemy. It's way easier to constrain bitcoin rules than to relax them. It's a shitfork even in the economic valuation of its proponents so they should be ostracized for promoting it and pay at least social cost for attacking bitcoin.

Miner signaling doesn't mean much either. A block creator can signal but then don't enforce the constrained rules.

I'm just offering to swap sats and checking who can be trusted and who sold out to become a shitfork promoter. Indeed gambling here is helping to push a contentious change onto bitcoin by platforming that propaganda. Moreover, not at your own expense but at the cost of all bitcoin users.

I'm just offering to swap sats and checking if I can still trust you or if you sold out to become a shitfork promoter. Indeed gambling here is helping to push a contentious change onto bitcoin by platforming that propaganda. Moreover, not at your own expense but at the cost of all bitcoin users.

Man, I have been looking for a single BIP‑110 promoter who doesn’t consider it a shitfork for over 3 months. I’m willing to swap smaller amounts via a trustless (on‑chain) multisig. It turns out, they’re all full of shit liars who push others towards a fork that they don’t believe will succeed.

Do you care to save face and back your words with sats? Otherwise, you're explicitly providing a platform for shitfork promotion and showing that your words can't be trusted. I already offered you an opportunity to swap sats, so that you can double those on the fork side, in a trustless (onchain) manner.

Will you back up your words with sats? Otherwise, you're giving a platform for an explicit shitfork promotion and proving that your words can’t be trusted. I can also offer a trustless swap of sats between the two chains. I’m willing to accept smaller amounts than does.

Considering the organiser’s stance, a fancy one could be: Shitforky Liar’s Walking Circus

OMG, so now you’re promoting a shitfork backed by BS legal threats… By fighting with CSW, you’ve become like him. Do you want to swap some sats via a trust‑less multisig, doubling them on the fork’s side? If you honestly believe in its success and therefore don’t consider it a shitfork, then it’s a rational decision to make. You can be the first one who actually doesn't consider it a shitfork. If you don't have a whole coin to swap, I'm happy to swap smaller amounts than does.

That's all irrelevant in the context of the offer to swap sats between the chains. I despise NFTs, ETH and #BLV

Do you care to save face and back your words with sats? Otherwise, you're explicitly promoting a shitfork and showing that your words can't be trusted. I've already offered you an opportunity to swap sats between the chains in a trustless (on-chain) way.

Indeed, it should be called BEP: Bitcoin Enshitification Proposal

Pushing a contentious fork is gambling. Moreover, not only at your own cost, but at the cost of bitcoin users.

Those who don’t respect the consensus and push a contentious change using dirty tactics such as lawfare or empty‑word propaganda (words not backed by sats) don’t deserve respect