Indeed I did ask about the reversal, and I appreciate the thorough reply. I appreciated having you as an ally during the BIP-110 saga. You're clearly a highly intelligent person, and we needed all the brain hash we could muster. However, I'm still seeing dissonance. When you say, > "[Miners] are all one matrix incentive-driven machine, already captured. Rock on, Bitcoin." It simultaneously admits that capture has taken place on SHA256 while cheering it on. I don't know how you square this circle in your mind, and this is one of the bits that is confusing me. If you know and agree that it's a centralized, captured chain, what is there to root for exactly? You can hope for NGU, but that's just vibes. We *know* the value proposition isn't there... So whatever tricks the centralized masters pull, it's all about the greater fool now. Do you plan to exit after a good pump in price? And in any case, how can you cheer it on in good conscience? My conscience leads me to warn people *not* to invest in this thing or in its treasury derivative-type instruments because it's not like I know exactly who is poised to rug, or when they'll do it. Do you? Every day seems to have a new scandal. CoinKite, Blockstream, Metaplanet, etc. > "BLAKE2B HARDFORK DOESN'T SOLVE THE MINER DECENTRALIZATION BUG" Multi-lane has tradeoffs and issues of its own, as I understand it, and may not actually be a sufficient solution. I agree that the decentralization bug is unsolved. It might be unsolvable by proof of work mechanisms, alone. But I think we only discover this by actually running the experiment. As interesting and thought-provoking as a simulation might be, it is only that---a simulation. It cannot model the emerging problems and potential solutions as they occur in real time, nor can we properly simulate social behavior without replicating an entire society and all of its agents in full detail. It is irreducibly complex. I would never allow a simulation to prevent me from taking action with respect to something in which I believe. Life has to be about more than simple accounting and outcomes. > "Without automatic, two-way replay protection, which is the gold standard for alt-bitcoin forks, there is LITTLE CHANCE that any major credible exchange will list the coin." With respect to exchanges not listing, this is fiat thinking. Large centralized exchanges do not need to exist at all for bitcoin to be useful. These are mainly for people to offramp into fiat or for those unable or unwilling to take proper self-custody, which does not fit with the purpose of bitcoin. This is what I mean when I question whether your stance has changed, because you seemed to be a person of principle, with belief in bitcoin's core mission, but now seem only concerned with NGU, fiat, and centralized, KYC exchanges. If there has been no change in attitude, then I mistook your stance for belief and conviction in the principles underlying bitcoin.
