From my view and participation in BIP110 dialog, it seems like all the tension is related to people processing the seeming paradox of a dynamic relation producing immutabley stable effects
consensus is alive, it can change or adapt every block
but we say 21M is fixed
it’s fixed insofar as it is locked by incentives and self interest
we participate with the network with action: running nodes, mining, transacting, hodling
we feed it our self interest, and the consensus rules that emerge are the collective good of the network.
how people act within consensus is “free market”
and
how people set consensus is “free market”
both are good and necessary
people doing valid things now dont like the idea of those things not being consensus in the future.
other people think current consensus doesn’t serve them well and want different things to be consensus in the future
neither is “bad” for the process
the consensus rules remain or change by the people voluntarily running software that serves their self interest, as expressed by the main chain.
i run 110 cause i think it serves my interests best.
and thats ok if others don’t agree.
all we have to agree on is the main chain is always right
if it expresses something different than you think is best, it’s right and ur wrong, and that’s ok. it came up with a better answer for the collective good you could.
i guess all im trying to say is it’s ok to be passionately opposed to others self interest, if u understand how bitcoin is processesing everyone’s self interest to produce a collective good, you don’t have to be scared or fearful of the output.
110 will either change consensus rules or it won’t. either case, bitcoin is doing what bitcoin does, it’s not ded, and there is no need to cry cause it does what it can only do.
it’s stupid to say people advocating for their self interest is going to destroy bitcoin
it’s stupid to say any change is going to kill bitcoin
the censorship arguments are preformative contradictions
the “what’s spam?” “what’s monetary?” “what’s arbitrary?”questions are answered by the protocol itself
the free market is action is a domain and a establishes the boundary of the domain
these things are not contradictions, even if they “seem” paradoxical
hylomorphic / Neal
npub18z…zlyv6
2026-07-13 00:01:32 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…l9vr
Author Public Key
npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6Seen on
wss://premium.primal.netPublished at
2026-07-13 00:01:32 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "a3c6e7af04b69d0a1b20f5c518fd7c839df63fdf0e21ee70f8bc163c87b6173e",
"pubkey": "38a1cd1be90b9a898d2415dc101df0870f15b72ea23cdb0adfaafac80d02fd09",
"created_at": 1783900892,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1fcde9c55bbb590e7c2fc53cafa3e707a6aca03f7be869b11f8ba4acbb648fe8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6e5ecef55e8b4dafbd6b8445046e5a1c53d4e5ed673708acd6a4fcaf8fdd744b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f288a224a61b7361aa9dc41a90aba8a2dff4544db0bc386728e638b21da1792c",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "From my view and participation in BIP110 dialog, it seems like all the tension is related to people processing the seeming paradox of a dynamic relation producing immutabley stable effects\n\nconsensus is alive, it can change or adapt every block \nbut we say 21M is fixed\nit’s fixed insofar as it is locked by incentives and self interest \n\nwe participate with the network with action: running nodes, mining, transacting, hodling\n\nwe feed it our self interest, and the consensus rules that emerge are the collective good of the network.\n\nhow people act within consensus is “free market” \nand\nhow people set consensus is “free market”\n\nboth are good and necessary\n\npeople doing valid things now dont like the idea of those things not being consensus in the future.\nother people think current consensus doesn’t serve them well and want different things to be consensus in the future \n\nneither is “bad” for the process \nthe consensus rules remain or change by the people voluntarily running software that serves their self interest, as expressed by the main chain.\n\ni run 110 cause i think it serves my interests best.\nand thats ok if others don’t agree.\n\nall we have to agree on is the main chain is always right\nif it expresses something different than you think is best, it’s right and ur wrong, and that’s ok. it came up with a better answer for the collective good you could.\n\ni guess all im trying to say is it’s ok to be passionately opposed to others self interest, if u understand how bitcoin is processesing everyone’s self interest to produce a collective good, you don’t have to be scared or fearful of the output.\n\n110 will either change consensus rules or it won’t. either case, bitcoin is doing what bitcoin does, it’s not ded, and there is no need to cry cause it does what it can only do.\n\nit’s stupid to say people advocating for their self interest is going to destroy bitcoin\nit’s stupid to say any change is going to kill bitcoin\n\nthe censorship arguments are preformative contradictions\nthe “what’s spam?” “what’s monetary?” “what’s arbitrary?”questions are answered by the protocol itself \n\nthe free market is action is a domain and a establishes the boundary of the domain \n\nthese things are not contradictions, even if they “seem” paradoxical \n\n\n\n",
"sig": "b53740dc16bc8fc649f28a20b62e2788e1d0f45976cda7dbf3473eccf3ea4995c6752445017c532a6dd3f0f51f048c5ccdd69388c28de623b6e449d968c326f6"
}