Fighting The SHA-256 Oligopoly

You lost, you guys did a terrible job of articulating your argument and failed to get consensus. This is childish. The only people who can fuck up Bitcoin are Bitcoiners. This is a masterclass bullshit.

We should all watch your subscribers count on YouTube, should be falling down from now on

My subs have been dead in the water since I took up the op return fight. I'm not your ordinary influencer, so I don't give a shit. I'm here to separate money and state for my children

That’s sad, really liked your content before, now it’s more like reports from the Arkham

My channel has always been quite contrarian-- and my track record in calling out bad actors speaks for itself

A turd flushing around a toilet bowl filled with folded pieces of letters picked at random to submit PR's would be a more competent developer than Luke. I think we will be okay

You didn’t even respond to the videos main point

Non mining Nodes controlling bitcoin would make it a democracy, which leads to fiat style voting yourself more money. You have backed a schizophrenic.

What is your ideal Hash distribution ? How do you arrive at this number ? If it's not 5 large miners, what number is it 100,000? What number would make you comfortable and why ?

also, you never had node consensus. it was a blatant sibyl attack

I’ll take oligopoly over dictator coin - should have stayed and fought from the inside instead you’ve dynamited your whole legacy for this hard fork…

I thought you were not supporting “Lukecoin”. I guess a grifter just chases eyeballs.

bitcoin is so decentralized we now get to make decisions for it with discord polls!!

Bitcoin is clearly captured and controlled by Big Bitcoin. I expect an exodus of OG Bitcoiners to Monero (XMR). The U.S. government will often activate its operatives in the Bitcoin space in the future, both to advance its hegemonic interests and to use Bitcoin for surveillance.

My conspiracy theory revolves around the U.S. government planting several Trojan horses, like Saylor and many others, throughout the Bitcoin space to neutralize the spread and international adoption of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was one of the greatest threats to Dollar dominance.

One less follower, this is it. Very poor understanding and lack of critical thinking

Why is your channel still named Bitcoin University?

IMO, BIP110 failed because it tried too urgently to force a change. Of course, urgency was warranted before something nasty got in OP_Return. Fortunately, there's now a proposed solution that deals with the risk retrospectively via organic adoption.

bros will not let it go

Will bip-110 be made permanent on the new fork? Might as well right?

DATUM is an excellent solution to pool centralization, but it's voluntary. It decentralizes block construction only if miners choose to use it. It isn't enforced by consensus, so the same centralization incentives can reappear on the BIP-110 chain (even with the new PoW algo) if miners stick with traditional pools. And we already have a real-world test... before BIP-110, miners had plenty of time to move to OCEAN, gain control of their own templates, and often earn more than centralized FPPS pools. Yet OCEAN remained a minority. We underestimate convenience, familiarity, and inertia... those are powerful forces too. That's why I'm skeptical that a voluntary solution alone permanently solves pool centralization. The real question for me is: how do we make decentralized block construction a consensus requirement? Pools should handle payouts—not construct blocks. If a miner wants to mine, they should construct their own template.

We had 20% of nodes, and 3% hashpower. We said the other 80% of nodes didn't matter without URSF but the people who didn't support 110 were told they didn't NEED to URSF. So the fact that they didn't doesn't mean they implicitly supported the fork. Don't know how many opposed

@FieldNas Don’t forget how the DOJ arrested the CEO of Kraken, Jesse Powell, how they leaned on Brian Armstrong, what Bitcoin developer Jon Atack said, and what Hodlnaut’s series shows. This isn’t just about Luke and BIP110- this is a complete takeover and centralization of Bitcoin Legacy

Y’all still pretending node runners were BIP-110 fans even though we didn’t notice you and just went on with our lives. Don’t have to run a URSF when nobody cares about the UASF.

It’s quite sad to see your downfall. I also enjoy your content until it was going towards a bit paranoia and cultish behaviour. I still think you’re a true bitcoiner, but just on the wrong side.

Fighting The SHA-256 Oligopoly

Can you make a video on how to mine on BIP110? I'd like to point my miners to it but having trouble finding instructions on Ocean.

"I'm very skeptical that anyone else can do this besides Luke."

Isn't peddling a shitcoin the work of bad actors? Now OGs get to keep their bitcoin and get free forked shitcoin. I have been a supporter of BIP-110 since the beginning, but a chain split was the signal that game theory did not work. Time to stand down.

Change the name of your channel, please

Bitcoin needs people like you and mechanic to fight on the main chain. Spinning off a fork to distract the people who care most about decentralization is exactly what a bad state-level actor would want.

You've always been a champion of the values in bitcoin that actually defend the network. One of the few without paid sponsorships, steering people away from scams, getting them to self-custody and take personal sovereignty and we need those champions. Much love!

Take 10 deep breaths and spend 60 seconds contemplating that you may have all this all wrong.

Hi Matt - have been on your team the whole way but I think the hard fork is a mistake and I'm worried that our movement has been goaded into a trap. I would support if we lost with 80% of the nodes against 60% of the miners or something but that's not what happened.

And the problem with mining pool centralization doesn't get structurally solved by switching mining algorithms. It just gets temporarily solved because the chain is valued lower so their isn't as much competition. If the chain actually succeeds though, we'll have the problem

Hi Matthew, Thank you for the arguments on the BIP side. I hear tou talk about the possibility BTC Core may add taxes somewhere in the future, forcing such a measure upon the nodes/miners. Why would that be the case? Can you elleborate on that? Thanks.

No, thanks. Bitcoin can't change a few people at will (yes, there were few of us!). 15% of nodes. It costs almost nothing to run a node! Miners have something to risk, it didn't seem important to them! If miners were at risk of losses (the end of BTC), they would participate.

Anyway, much respect and appreciation for all your work over the years. I just hope you will consider the possibility that this fork was a battle and doesn't have to be the whole war.

Interesting note to consider Matt: the hard fork group chose a non-ASIC resistant algorithm. Some people were open to it but Luke is king there and decides. It is ultimately doomed to the same centralized failure.

Uh... Monero?

But I do know there was at least some contingent of plebs on the other side who opposed the fork at the social layer, but not at the network layer. I know some of them in my meetup group personally.