npub19t…wzc0k on Nostr: Yeah, it's always the problem with hypotheticals, it's either too general so you ...
Yeah, it's always the problem with hypotheticals, it's either too general so you can't come to conclusions, or so specific it has no chance of happening.
In the case of propaganda we can use for the blacklist option, we already have it..
"Bitcoin separates money from state"
And with the 21M, we already have less than that. e.g. mining rewards not claimed in full, coins provably undependable due to transaction mistakes or burned to bootstrap some shitcoin. 21M was always an upper limit, because there is no requirement to claim the maximum mining reward.
The main reason I wish bitcoiners/node runners wouldn't dismiss a user activated soft fork blacklisting (especially publicly), is that the credible threat of it happening may prevent the theft in the first place.
In the case of propaganda we can use for the blacklist option, we already have it..
"Bitcoin separates money from state"
And with the 21M, we already have less than that. e.g. mining rewards not claimed in full, coins provably undependable due to transaction mistakes or burned to bootstrap some shitcoin. 21M was always an upper limit, because there is no requirement to claim the maximum mining reward.
The main reason I wish bitcoiners/node runners wouldn't dismiss a user activated soft fork blacklisting (especially publicly), is that the credible threat of it happening may prevent the theft in the first place.