I don’t understand your framing of “emergency temporary measures.” That logic applies to centralized systems where a small group can extend powers at will. This isn’t that. It’s a soft fork with a built-in expiry at a specific block height. It self-expires. Extending it would require a new round of consensus. And if it’s not working as intended or if meaningful monetary use cases emerge over the next 18 months - I don’t see how it would get that consensus.
BitVM falls into that bucket too. At this stage it’s not a proven monetary use case. It’s closer to an Ethereum-style experimentation sandbox than to something that strengthens Bitcoin’s monetary function. There isn’t a single production-grade deployment demonstrating durable demand - just philosophical whataboutism about what might exist someday.
What puzzles me about the criticism of BIP110 is the inconsistency. If it were permanent, critics would call it reckless and irreversible. When it’s explicitly temporary precisely because it could carry risk - they still call it reckless, now because it might not be permanent. It sounds less like risk analysis and more like reflexive opposition. 🤔
Tauri
npub1x9…hcsg7
2026-02-23 14:23:00 GMT
in reply to nevent1q…eyv0
Author Public Key
npub1x9q89st049pnuym57ch9kqkgzcu5dmff32wduwc4g9gnc2w3nlls8hcsg7Seen on
wss://nos.lolPublished at
2026-02-23 14:23:00 GMTEvent JSON
{
"id": "5e1ddbb63460cb2dbf48474116bb5e822e597cb85fd21e1ef070db6bb8329982",
"pubkey": "314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff",
"created_at": 1771856580,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a0d09a42ddf0567201c4015aebf8e6bd341efe08234702e7ddcfc12c28042cb3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3e965a699a5e9d9a72b5f4d6b601923f3ac936556412d8e5e248a587f615b39d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2cbe4e0a518b409692f27019b91f3f6277caed541f086a67e8649024df22b3d0",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"b21121518221b0f031bd41f010aeef1e4015c1aad5d8b2539d2ddcd60c7f8666",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"f821179bd5d691c61b4356336388adadc3cc1304f49e771a87c38de7ed4fd022",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "I don’t understand your framing of “emergency temporary measures.” That logic applies to centralized systems where a small group can extend powers at will. This isn’t that. It’s a soft fork with a built-in expiry at a specific block height. It self-expires. Extending it would require a new round of consensus. And if it’s not working as intended or if meaningful monetary use cases emerge over the next 18 months - I don’t see how it would get that consensus.\n\nBitVM falls into that bucket too. At this stage it’s not a proven monetary use case. It’s closer to an Ethereum-style experimentation sandbox than to something that strengthens Bitcoin’s monetary function. There isn’t a single production-grade deployment demonstrating durable demand - just philosophical whataboutism about what might exist someday.\n\nWhat puzzles me about the criticism of BIP110 is the inconsistency. If it were permanent, critics would call it reckless and irreversible. When it’s explicitly temporary precisely because it could carry risk - they still call it reckless, now because it might not be permanent. It sounds less like risk analysis and more like reflexive opposition. 🤔",
"sig": "ea1da6670693c321d5edb87505fef6eb519e0759f4a1213e039c099011ec588e688d63cb2a4b8b63052ab5bb733bc92d090cbfef1b90b18fee2d826e800deb89"
}