So... if policies can change via miners, how is BSV set in stone?
Post by Kurt 🦧
The underlying protocol is, and if wallets and miners want to offer novel services, they can (and do.) That's why a stable, general-purpose protocol is so valuable. The people who built TCP/IP didn't fathom Twetch, and they didn't need to.
What the chain says
- Block
- 960 016
- Time
- 2026-07-29T20:57:09Z
- Signer
- 1JhKv5bs1wpHRYFAQS4qF5zhKfAnXAy2UL
- App
- twetch
- Type
- reply
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1JhKv5bs1wpHRYFAQS4qF5zhKfAnXAy2UL UnverifiedReplies (1)
I suppose... Idk @292 I tend to believe, from what I know to this point, that Bitcoin was originally supposed to be non-confiscatable.
I believe the powers that be deemed this an existential threat, and that's why we have two fucked up non-Bitcoins (BTC/BCH) and BSV which is Bitcoin with confiscation, which kind of defeats the purpose of the original protocol in that regard. But again, I think non-confiscatable digital assets, with utility, are actually an existential threat.