The argument presented by @NodeSwiss relies on a significant logical fallacy: the belief that User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) or similar mechanisms represent genuine consensus.
In reality, the power of UASF hinges on influencing exchanges and miners, not on a broad democratic process within the BTC community.
The majority of individuals holding BTC do not run nodes; only a small number of nodes exist compared to the total number of BTC holders.
The myth of UASF working effectively during SegWit is a case of smoke and mirrors. It was less about real community consensus and more about exerting pressure on exchanges and threatening miners into compliance.
By focusing on a few high-visibility nodes and exchanges, proponents create the illusion of widespread support.
However, these nodes and exchanges, driven by their own interests, are not representative of the actual majority. The developers, using this strategy, manipulate perceptions to suggest that they have the authority to alter the protocol.
BTC’s supposed community-driven changes like SegWit or UASF were not about true user consensus but rather about pressuring key players to adopt a narrative that benefits a few.
It is a con that relies on portraying developers as having the authority to change a system that should have been immutable—"set in stone."
When the narrative alone wasn't persuasive, proponents resorted to deception, misleading users into believing that BTC was synonymous with Bitcoin. This tactic fundamentally distorts the principles Bitcoin was built upon, manipulating a few loud voices to redefine the system against its original design.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 7, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1843165450894745641?t=BVxSl-78xesTAOhK99phlw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1103
In reality, the power of UASF hinges on influencing exchanges and miners, not on a broad democratic process within the BTC community.
The majority of individuals holding BTC do not run nodes; only a small number of nodes exist compared to the total number of BTC holders.
The myth of UASF working effectively during SegWit is a case of smoke and mirrors. It was less about real community consensus and more about exerting pressure on exchanges and threatening miners into compliance.
By focusing on a few high-visibility nodes and exchanges, proponents create the illusion of widespread support.
However, these nodes and exchanges, driven by their own interests, are not representative of the actual majority. The developers, using this strategy, manipulate perceptions to suggest that they have the authority to alter the protocol.
BTC’s supposed community-driven changes like SegWit or UASF were not about true user consensus but rather about pressuring key players to adopt a narrative that benefits a few.
It is a con that relies on portraying developers as having the authority to change a system that should have been immutable—"set in stone."
When the narrative alone wasn't persuasive, proponents resorted to deception, misleading users into believing that BTC was synonymous with Bitcoin. This tactic fundamentally distorts the principles Bitcoin was built upon, manipulating a few loud voices to redefine the system against its original design.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 7, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1843165450894745641?t=BVxSl-78xesTAOhK99phlw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1103
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment