Will you back up your words with sats? Otherwise, itβs an explicit shitfork promotion and proof that your words canβt be trusted. I can also offer a trustless swap of sats between the two chains. Iβm willing to accept smaller amounts than @cedab81bβ¦f882f13e.
π c71b8329β¦π b1098d51β¦
You're promoting gambling, pure shitcoiner energy. Why not just admit you're into Ethereum and Polymarket instead of trying to turn Bitcoin into that. π€‘
Will you back your words with a UASF?
Instead of playing fiat futures games, work within Bitcoinβs rules and run it.
Or are you unwilling to risk it all just to protect spam on-chain?
I don't think bip110 improves bitcoin in any way, even though it's in the name. It's temporary and isn't improving on any existing problem. What am I missing?
Improvements should be permanent.
Fork would be unnecessary if contentious changes weren't made to core including the inscriptions bug which was redefined as a feature, rather than admitting it's a bug and patching. Probably because some of the devs were profiting off the shitcoinery that is inscriptions. Bitcoin is an electronic cash system NOT electronic trash system. You want NFTs, you're an ETH head shitcoiner. π€‘