Why do you keep saying no real solution has been offered. Bip110 is as real as it gets. It deals with all known ways of spam and signals to all parties that bitcoin is money. Nodes are putting their foot down and saying move your garbage elsewhere, we’re not storing them. They also signal to future developers that their needs and wishes have to be respected.

This is my first civil war in Bitcoin but some veterans I’ve spoken to say similar sentiments were observed in 2016-2017.

Then you’re doing something wrong because I like your posts 😆

As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) if no miners signal support before activation, a chain split could still occur. However, because BIP-110 is a soft fork, the split would be asymmetric. Blocks produced under BIP-110 rules remain valid to core nodes, while blocks that violate BIP-110 would be rejected by upgraded Knots nodes. This creates lower validation risk for participants enforcing BIP-110, since their blocks remain compatible with the core network, while legacy miners risk producing blocks that upgraded nodes will ignore. If the BIP-110 chain accumulates more cumulative proof-of-work, core nodes would naturally follow it because the blocks remain valid under their rules. In that sense, the upgraded chain has a structural advantage. However, this outcome is not guaranteed. If most hashpower initially ignores BIP-110, the upgraded chain could progress very slowly until the next difficulty adjustment, making early participation economically risky. From a game-theory perspective, miners must balance the risk of producing invalid blocks against the risk of mining on a minority chain with reduced profitability. If economic actors such as exchanges, users, and liquidity providers demonstrate support for BIP-110, miners would likely coordinate toward early signaling to avoid wasted hashpower and reorganization risk. This dynamic increases the probability of clean activation, but does not eliminate the possibility of a temporary chain divergence.

We are entering a domain in which sovereignty ceases to function as an abstract political concept and instead emerges as an engineering discipline. In the digital environment, freedom is no longer expressed primarily through slogans or legal declarations. It is increasingly defined by a tangible set of protocols, cryptographic keys, and infrastructural systems that an individual either controls directly or relinquishes to others. Cryptography occupies a uniquely transformative role within this shift. It introduces a historically unprecedented capability: the ability to possess and transfer assets without requiring formal authorization from an institutional authority. A private key serves as mathematical proof of control. Ownership is no longer mediated through courts, banks, or administrative intermediaries that certify and enforce property rights. Mathematics does not recognize institutional hierarchy or social status. It recognizes only whether an individual possesses the correct cryptographic key. This represents a profound philosophical departure from traditional conceptions of property, which have historically relied upon collective recognition, legal enforcement, and, ultimately, the implicit or explicit use of force. Infrastructure, however, complicates this newfound autonomy. Possessing cryptographic keys alone does not guarantee sovereignty if the surrounding technological environment remains externally controlled. Reliance on third-party servers, centralized cloud providers, and proprietary platforms introduces structural dependencies that dilute autonomy. The situation is analogous to owning a secure safe that is physically located within someone else’s residence. Under such conditions, self-hosting infrastructure, operating independent nodes, and maintaining local control over data and communication channels begin to appear less as fringe technical hobbies and more as rational extensions of personal self-determination. Historical developments provide instructive parallels. The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century redistributed informational authority by enabling individuals to produce and disseminate knowledge independently of centralized religious and political institutions. The widespread adoption of gunpowder-based weaponry altered military power dynamics by granting individuals and smaller groups the capacity to challenge entrenched aristocratic hierarchies. Cryptography appears to be facilitating a comparable redistribution of power, though in the economic and informational domains. It allows individuals, under certain conditions, to function as micro-sovereign entities. This interpretation remains a working hypothesis, as states and corporations consistently adapt to technological disruption rather than passively yielding influence. Digital sovereignty, however, carries inherent costs. It demands technical competence, sustained discipline, and an acceptance of personal risk. Historically, societies have demonstrated a consistent preference for convenience over autonomy. This tendency produces a growing divergence between individuals who actively manage their own technological infrastructure and those who delegate control to centralized service providers. The resulting landscape begins to resemble a modernized form of feudal dependency contrasted with a form of digital nomadism characterized by infrastructural self-reliance. Further complexity emerges when sovereignty is examined as a layered construct rather than a singular condition. An individual may achieve financial autonomy through decentralized monetary systems such as Bitcoin while remaining informationally dependent upon centralized social media platforms. Similarly, encrypted communication protocols may protect privacy while professional or creative activities remain tied to centralized cloud services. In this sense, sovereignty increasingly resembles a technological stack analogous to the layered architecture of internet protocols. The centralization of any single layer introduces potential vulnerabilities that can compromise the integrity of the entire system. Perhaps the most philosophically significant consequence of this transformation is the reemergence of personal responsibility as a foundational element of freedom. When individuals assume the roles traditionally occupied by financial institutions, media organizations, and identity verification authorities, accountability becomes correspondingly individualized. The absence of institutional recovery mechanisms is not merely a technical limitation but a structural feature of decentralized systems. The loss of a private key has no bureaucratic remedy, just as there has never been a practical method for recovering misplaced physical stores of precious metals. This trajectory suggests a speculative yet increasingly plausible hypothesis regarding the future organization of societies. Social and economic coordination may gradually shift away from territorial governance models toward networks composed of autonomous individuals interacting through shared protocols rather than centralized institutions. While such an outcome remains uncertain, current technological developments exert directional pressure toward this model. The resulting environment would likely constitute a complex and unconventional synthesis of decentralized governance, cryptographic trust systems, and voluntary contractual coordination mechanisms.

You summed it up nicely

Pretty hyped about this. Hope the launch goes smoothly. https://youtu.be/J-ewPoAj49g

Sums up Reddit pretty well 😅

Why chatGPT thinks Charlie Kirk is alive? 🤔

😆

Bitcoiners often fantasize about the moment banks fail and fiat currencies hyperventilate. In that collapse fantasy lies moral vindication: “you should have listened,” followed by a sudden explosion of real purchasing power. But what if the same moment is awaited just as eagerly by the people pulling the strings? Crises are their raw material. They never waste one, and every rupture demands a new narrative for the next round of extraction. Now consider the uncomfortable possibility that Bitcoin isn’t actually ready for that moment. Broken clients. Mining centralisation. Governance that’s more opaque than we like to admit. Coins trapped behind KYC rails and regulated chokepoints. If the system breaks and Bitcoin breaks with it (or is captured in the process) what exactly are we claiming victory over?

When even Brian Armstrong is more aware than the central banks’ dinosaur class, you know that normies with fiat savings accounts are beyond screwed.

Twitter is always down for me.

There are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs.

Elon finally beginning to understand Bitcoin after being directly exposed to it for nearly 6 years, doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It just means he isn’t as smart as you expected him to be.

Luke Dashjr lost his coins in a hack. Blockstream Jade’s firmware was compromised. Bitcoin Core v30 deletes user’s wallets. Moral of the story: all software geniuses make mistakes, although some get softer treatment than others.

I mean the Uruk-hai army of Saruman looked way bigger. (I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me this the whole day lol 😂)

Doubtful

Checks out 😆