{
  "txid": "05d45c2133fd3d0bb76f7d726dee3aa1c2cf96544092a428c222ffd6bd1245f0",
  "block_height": 952208,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "reply",
  "map_content": "Bitcoin_101: The blockchain trilemma fairytale  \r\n\r\nRead on my blog:  \r\nhttps://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/the_blockchain_trilemma_fairytale/  \r\n\r\nRead onchain:  \r\nhttps://ordinals.gorillapool.io/content/343db0853846585132fe9059a94a8aa4b6321bcb8b247cf3da5f2cbb7b1770c1  \r\n\r\nRead here on treechat, without pictures though:  \r\nauthor: steffenkd  \r\ndate: 04.06.2026  \r\nwordcount: ~ 3750  \r\nreading time: ~ 30 minutes  \r\n---\r\nThe blockchain trilemma fairytale  \r\n---\r\nTLDR/Summary:  \r\n---\r\nTrilemma somehow has a negative connotation.  \r\nIt somehow implies, that there is a problem which has to be fixed.  \r\nThis assumption is based on a false premise.   \r\nYou simply have three variables, namely decentralization, security and scalability which can be balanced out against each other, like in mathematics.   \r\nThis is how you solve mathematical equations.  \r\nAnd the same concept of variables being balanced out against each other due to infinite feedback-loops and co-dependencies can be found all over nature.  \r\nIt is called balance and is not negative at all.  \r\nAdditionally on small-block-BTC we are not talking about an equation with three variables but with only two variables.  \r\nNamely decentralization and security, since the variable blocksize is a frozen constant at 1 MB (one Megabyte).  \r\nWhich would make it a blockchain dilemma (duos, duo, di, dos, two).  \r\nThere are only two variables left, because on small-block-BTC the originally variable blocksize, which was set to 1MB as a temporary [SPAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming) and [DDOS](https://www.slictionary.com/definitions/ddos/402cad5d0665ab63deb935c28565e5db876ed780e401e1741b17b5f1633b077d) protection got converted into a frozen constant of 1MB (4MB blockweight).  \r\nThey sacrificed scalability for decentralization and security, which leaves small-block-BTC with just two variables, namely decentralization and security.  \r\nSo we are not talking about a problem (dilemma or trilemma), but just about an equation with several variables.  \r\nAnd on small-block-BTC only two variables are left, because the blocksize was converted into a constant of 1MB.  \r\nTherefore the term \"blockchain trilemma\" is just [Orwellian Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) to artificially create a problem which never existed in the first place.  \r\nOn the original Big Block Bitcoin, those three variables are still variable and can be balanced out against each other.  \r\nTherefore it scales and can match the demand for transactions with a corresponding supply like free markets always do.  \r\nThe same way a marathon runner can run a marathon because his heart rate is variable, adapts to the stimuli and supplies the demanded heart rate increase.    \r\nIf you want a more detailed version with some pictures, analogies and explanations, keep on reading.  \r\nA classical meme to visualize what happened:   \r\n![bike_meme](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/bike_fall_meme_bitcoin.jpg)  \r\nPicture: the bike represents the original bitcoin protocol, while the stick represents the artificially and arbitrarily introduced blocksize limit.  \r\nThe temporary blocksize limit wasn't removed as the demand for transactions rose.  \r\nNo [law of demand and supply](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030415/who-discovered-law-supply-and-demand.asp) possible.  \r\nBitcoin - there never was a blockchain trilemma\r\n---\r\nThe so called [blockchain-trilemma](https://pintu-academy.pintukripto.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ENG-The-Scalability-trilema-Trilema-Blockchain-1024x576.png) is often visually represented by an equilateral triangle with the three points and sides \"decentralization\", \"security\" and \"scalability\".   \r\nThis triangle analogy was introduced by [Zoko Wilcox O'Hearn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko's_triangle) and Vitalik Buterin and the three points of the triangle had different names.  \r\n![blockchain_trilemma](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/blockchain_trilemma_triangle.svg)  \r\nPicture: The so called blockchain trilemma, visualized as an equilateral triangle with three variables.  \r\nNormally it is said, that you can only pick two variables.  \r\nBut this is a fallacy.  \r\nYou can pick all three.  \r\nTrilemma or self balancing equation?   \r\n---\r\nThere never was a trilemma in the first place.  \r\nThe triangle is just a visual analogy for an equation with three variables and the solution to the equation is quite simple.  \r\nIt is a basic principle which can be found all over nature and which is being applied in mathematics as well.    \r\nIt is called \"balance\".  \r\nSo it is not a trilemma but just an equation with three variables, which can be balanced out against each other.  \r\nIt would be similar to call the human body with the linkage between blood pressure, stroke-volume, heart rate and the resulting overall performance a trilemma.  \r\nWhich isn't a trilemma at all.  \r\nIt is just natures universal concept of balance at work.  \r\nBut of course you can also intervene planned economy style and convert one of the variables into a constant of 1MB if you think you can outsmart nature or the free market.  \r\nWelcome to our old system, where problems are artificially created so power hungry middlemen and intermediaries can step in and come up with a prepared solution.  \r\nA solution which in many cases provides them with control, power and money.  \r\nThis is by the way one of the main reasons, why the original bitcoin design with big blocks is hated and ridiculed so much.  \r\nBecause it enables peer to peer interaction and eliminates middlemen and intermediaries.  \r\nTo be clear: in the human body scenario there are much more variables at work.  \r\nFor example breath frequency and volume, glucose storage capabilities of muscles and liver, fat storage, body weight, muscle mass; the list would be very long and the variables are all interconnected with feedback loops and co-dependencies.   \r\nThere is a visualization from Roche, called [\"biochemical pathways\"](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/usnish/biochemical-pathways-poster/refs/heads/master/preview.jpg) which is about the chemical processes and interconnections in the human body and may serve as another analogy how complex and interconnected certain systems can be.  \r\nAnd you can either let these equations balance themselves out or you arbitrarily intervene because you know whats best for all - choose wisely!  \r\nFree market versus centrally planned economy.  \r\nHistory doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes.  \r\n![roches_chemical_pathways](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/roches_chemical_pathways.jpg)  \r\nPicture: \"Roches chemical pathways\" provides a graphical representation of the most important biochemical pathways in living organisms, like glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, fatty acid metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, nucleotide metabolism, and much more.   \r\nVariables versus constants  \r\n---\r\nA variable is, by definition, flexible.  \r\nWhich means it can adapt to external stimuli - the so called \"free market\" with the law of demand and supply at work.  \r\nIf the demand for transactions rises, the size of the blocks can be increased accordingly and vice versa.  \r\nSimple as that.  \r\nIf you convert a variable into a constant this has certain consequences though.   \r\nConvert your variable heart rate into a constant of 20 beats per minute and watch whats going to happen.  \r\nOr fix the variable longitude of your GPS positioning system at 30\u00b0 west and try to navigate to your destination point - but don't forget to bring a rubber boat or life vest.   \r\nWhenever you convert a variable into a constant you have consequences.  \r\nThe three variables  \r\n---\r\nDecentralization  \r\n---\r\nCentralization means that something is centered in one point.  \r\nTherefore decentralization means that something is not centered in one point but exists in at least two points.  \r\nFor bitcoins game theoretical advantages to come into play a minimal amount of three points or nodes is needed longterm.   \r\nIn my opinion \"decentralization\" is one of, if not the most, misunderstood concept in the so called crypto and bitcoin space.    \r\nWhich is why it deserves its [own article](https://steffenkd.de/blog/decentralization_in_bitcoin/).  \r\nFor those who want to read more about [the decentralization in bitcoin](https://steffenkd.de/blog/decentralization_in_bitcoin/).  \r\nSpoiler alert: [the decentralization in bitcoin](https://steffenkd.de/blog/decentralization_in_bitcoin/) is also an equation, which can be balanced.  \r\nIn this case we have two variables: \"the user-decentralization\" due to identity creation by the users themselves through asynchronous keys, versus \"the miner-decentralization (or server-decentralization)\" due to economic incentives like finding a block and getting paid for timestamping the users transactions.  \r\nIf you limit the amount of transactions you automatically limit the amount of user-decentralization.  \r\nUsers can create their digital identity themselves by generating an asynchronous key pair, but 99.99% of them won't be able to use it on the small-block-BTC blockchain.  \r\nOr in small block BTC language: You can be your own bank, but you won't be able to transact.  \r\nYou would essentially end up with something like another [PGP implementation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy).  \r\nI recommend reading the article to get a better understanding of the concept.  \r\n![blockchain_trilemma_decentralization](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/blockchain_trilemma_decentralization_3-2016.svg)  \r\nScalability  \r\n---\r\nScalability is the ability of a system, application, or process to handle increased load or demand by expanding its capacity \u2014 without sacrificing performance, reliability, or efficiency.  \r\nThere are two main types:  \r\n- Vertical scaling (scaling up): Adding more power to an existing machine (more CPU, RAM, storage).  \r\n- Horizontal scaling (scaling out): Adding more machines or instances to distribute the load.  \r\nA scalable system can grow smoothly as users, data, or transactions increase \u2014 ideally with proportional or sublinear cost increases rather than exponential ones.  \r\n![horizontal-scaling_vs_vertical-scaling](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/addition_vertical_vs_horizontal_scaling.svg)  \r\nThe diagram shows how the same sum (1+2+\u2026+16 = 136) is computed in two very different ways:  \r\n- Left (vertical/sequential): Each number is added one at a time which needs a total of 15 steps - no parallelization possible.  \r\n- Right (horizontal/parallel): Numbers are paired up simultaneously at each level \u2014 8 pairs in step 1, then 4 pairs, then 2, then 1 \u2014 having also 15 steps in total, but reaching the answer in just 4 steps due to parallelization.  \r\nThis is the essence of parallel processing: more workers doing work at the same time, fewer steps overall.  \r\nThe utxo-model in bitcoin is another design, which enables parallel processing and therefore horizontal scaling.  \r\nDifferent users can compute their utxos on the blockchain in parallel if they have the corresponding private keys.   \r\nThis makes bitcoin with its utxo based system very flexible and fast compared to an account based system.  \r\nSo if something scales it means that there is more of it and that the supply can be raised.  \r\nThis is another free market principle.  \r\nIf the demand for a good or service rises, it normally gets matched by a corresponding supply if physical possible.  \r\nIn the technical area i.e., we experience an increase in computational power due to [Moores Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law), which is driven by an increased demand for computation.  \r\nSimilar to running a profitable node or miner instead of a non profit one, processing and timestamping a transaction is just a service which can be calculated and priced in economical.  \r\nYou just need a few metrics, like energy costs, technical equipment, storage costs, bandwidth costs, rental fees and a few others.  \r\nAfterwards you add a certain percentage on top, depending on how many transactions you are able to process or mine, what your competitors charge and how much profit you want to make.  \r\nAnd voila, you get a realistic price for processing a transaction based on simple market principles and metrics.  \r\nYou can restrict yourself to running a marathon at once centimeter/minute so everybody on earth, even turtles and slugs can run with you.  \r\nOr you can compete against the best 10, 100 or 2016 other runners and find out whats possible.  \r\nAsk the best runners in the world how they trained: by competing against the best or by competing against slugs?  \r\n1MB blocks versus unbounded blocks.  \r\nOne system is arbitrarily restricted to 1MB (4MB blockweight), the other one is unbounded.   \r\nOnly limited by the markets demand for transactions and by technical limitations like processing power, bandwidth and storage capacity.  \r\nI thought about writing a separate article about \"Scalability in bitcoin\", but in my opinion the concept is not that hard to grasp.  \r\nSecurity  \r\n---\r\nLike [the decentralization in bitcoin](https://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/decentralization_in_bitcoin/), this is another misunderstood concept in bitcoin.  \r\nSince it is highly correlated with [proof of work](https://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/proof_of_work) and [honesty](https://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/honesty/) I recommend you read both of my articles on the topic.   \r\nHere is a short excerpt from the introduction of the bitcoin whitepaper:  \r\n> \"The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they\u2019ll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.\"  \r\nAs can be seen, there is a sequence about \"a majority of CPU power being controlled by nodes that are not cooperating\" which means, that it is not just about hashpower, but about honesty.  \r\nWhich is the main reason why the word \"honest\" is mentioned over 16 times in the bitcoin whitepaper.  \r\nNine times in relation with \"honest node\".  \r\nSo if you think that the security of the bitcoin network is solely about hashrate, which is equivalent to \"brute force\" and would be analogous to \"the strongest guy is always right\", you may eventually find out that you are wrong.  \r\nAsk yourself a simple question: do you want to live in a society, where the strongest guy is always right?  \r\nLike Ragnar Redbeard states in his book \"Might is Right\"?  \r\nNo?  \r\nThen you may see \"proof of work\" not as the ultimate consensus mechanism, but more like a signal and investment up front, which will vanish  and be lost in case of getting caught cheating by another bitcoin miner (server operator).   \r\nAgain, read my article about [proof of work](https://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/proof_of_work).  \r\nIf you think that the strongest guy in the village can just take your bike, car or house or murder someone else, because he is the strongest guy, then well...good luck with that narrative longterm.  \r\nAnd good luck with the concepts of ownership, possession, law, accountability, fairness, honesty and peace.  \r\n![blockchain_trilemma_security](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/blockchain_trilemma_security_top.svg)  \r\nThievery is thievery, murder is murder and scamming is scamming no matter how strong you may be.  \r\nAs long as a majority of users has a demand for honesty, accountability, law and truth, bitcoin will come up with the corresponding supply.  \r\nNatures concept of demand and supply at work.  \r\nThe original bitcoin protocol - balance at work  \r\n---\r\n[On the original bitcoin protocol](https://thatsbtcnotbitcoin.com/), the three variables \"security\", \"scalability\" and \"decentralization\" can be balanced against each other.  \r\nSimple as that.  \r\nSome may call it the free market principle of supply and demand.  \r\n  \r\n![big_blocks](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/blockchain_trilemma_scalability_big_blocks.svg)  \r\nPicture: All three variables can be balanced out against each other, which would result in a slightly different shaped triangle.  \r\nIt will never be perfect and will constantly change, similar to your heartbeat, stroke-volume, blood pressure or heart-beat-variability.  \r\nBut that's the beauty of it.   \r\nThis is quite easy, since variables can either be increased or decreased while only being restricted by technical or economical thresholds or limits.  \r\nIf you are familiar with [Moore's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law) you may know, that processing power, storage capacity and data transmission speeds are all growing exponentially.  \r\nWhich is the main reason why most people have a super computer in their pockets or on their desk right now on which they are reading this article.  \r\nIf you want to visualize it, you can imagine a flat triangle being balanced on top of a pencil.  \r\nThe balance point is most certainly not on one of the corners or edges but somewhere in the center instead.  \r\nIt is not at the extremes but somewhere in the middle which can be proven mathematically, geometrically and physically.  \r\nA lot of nature is just numbers, calculus and geometry.  \r\nLike it is said to be stated on Plato's academy in Athens: \"Let no man ignorant of [geometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line) enter here!\"  \r\nYou can focus on just one or two sides, like security and decentralization and completely ignore the third, namely scalability.  \r\nYou can sacrifice scalability for the goddess of decentralization.  \r\nBut this is an extreme.  \r\nAnd nature has a tendency for [Galton's \"regression to the mean\"](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00509.x), which means, that it will go for a point somewhere in between the two extremes over time.  \r\nExtremes are good to test thresholds and to have reference points to actually find the mean or comfort zone.   \r\nBut they are normally not longterm sustainable without high costs or sacrifices - in this case the sacrifice of \"scalability\".  \r\nNature flows like a wave, and every wave fluctuates between two extremes.  \r\nBut the extremes themselves are just reference points for the Gaussian playground in the middle.  \r\nThe Yin and the Yang with the S-curve in between.  \r\nThe twilight, wave or snake - which keeps the two sides hidden from each other for an endless godly play.  \r\nAnd sometimes the mean or median can travel up or down.  \r\nDue to [Moore's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law) for example, certain computational metrics have increased over time.  \r\nThis is also how wealth is created or how it increases.   \r\nWealth is not created by hodling magic numbers though.  \r\nYou have to use those magic numbers.  \r\nThose magically entangled key pairs.  \r\nAnd you should use those magic numbers at scale.   \r\nTo enable peer-to-peer trade to nourish the magical creation of wealth.  \r\nOn small block BTC you can use those magical numbers five times per second.  \r\nOn Big Block Bitcoin the usage is mainly restricted by technical limitations.  \r\nAt the moment the capabilities are at around [one million transactions per second](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/web3/how-the-bsv-association-built-a-million-tps-blockchain-node-using-aws/).  \r\nAnd one million isn't the limit or in [Satoshis words according to Mike Hearn](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879):  \r\n> \"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide.  \r\nBitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.  \r\nIt never really hits a scale ceiling.  \r\nIf you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.\"  \r\nThe blockchain dilemma with 1MB-BTC-Core:  \r\n---\r\nBy converting the blocksize variable into a constant of 1MB (4MB blockweight), 1MB-BTC-Core essentially converted the so called blockchain-trilemma into a dilemma.  \r\n  \r\n![small_blocks](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/blockchain_trilemma_scalability_small_blocks.svg)  \r\nDue to the frozen blocksize of 1MB, the blockchain trilemma on small-block-BTC is like a triangle which is so flat, that it looks more like a straight line than a triangle.  \r\nSince you can easily have 1GB blocks, you would have to shrink the size of the triangle on one side by x1000 to adjust for the scale difference.  \r\nWhich would make it look more like a flat line.  \r\nAnd that is not up for debate, it is a simple and obvious fact and can be verified mathematical and geometrical.  \r\nOne of the most basic market principles is the [law of demand and supply](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030415/who-discovered-law-supply-and-demand.asp) like already mentioned several times.  \r\nIt implies, that whenever a market signals a higher demand, it normally is met by other market participants with an equivalent raise of supply, if possible.     \r\nOn small-block-BTC, this market principle no longer works, since it was artificially and arbitrarily restricted to 1MB - planned economy style.  \r\nAnd since small blockers have completely sacrificed scalability for decentralization, they won't even consider scaling in parallel to [Moore's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law).  \r\nComing back to the human body analogy: if you start running a marathon, and the demand for energy rises, your body automatically increases breath frequency, heart rate, stroke volume and blood pressure to supply your muscles with the demanded surplus of energy and oxygen - supply and demand at work.  \r\nThe variables go up or down to keep a balance and react to external stimuli.  \r\nNow convert your variable heart rate into a constant and restrict it to 30 beats per minute and watch what's going to happen.  \r\nSpoiler alert: no marathons, no sports and no walks in nature possible.  \r\nLying in bed will be your sole activity.  \r\nYou have artificially and arbitrarily crippled yourself.  \r\nThe same happened with small-block-BTC with its 1MB blocksize.  \r\nThat doesn't necessarily mean, that there are no usecases for small-block-BTC.  \r\n[But it is not bitcoin](https://thatsbtcnotbitcoin.com/) as described in the [whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto](https://steffenkd.de/blog/bitcoin_whitepaper/).  \r\nAdditionally the trilemma is actually a dilemma and on top of all that, it was artificially created.  \r\nSmall-block-BTC is by design unusable as \"peer to peer electronic cash\", which is the heading of the whitepaper.  \r\nLong story short: \r\n---\r\nI would argue, that there never was a blockchain trilemma in the first place and that it is just an endless self balancing equation with three variables.  \r\nAnd on small-block-BTC it is an artificially and arbitrarily created problem.  \r\nAdditionally on small-block-BTC it isn't a trilemma, since there are only two variables involved, which makes it more of a dilemma (duos, dos, two).  \r\n![small_vs_big](/home/lucidebris/ipara/0-vaults/bsv_blogposts_3dordi/images/blockchain_trilemma_pics/big_block_vs_small_block_bitcoin.svg)  \r\nIf you have any understanding about nature and supply and demand at work, you may come to the conclusion, that there never was a problem with the original bitcoin design.  \r\nThe small blocker narrative was socially engineered to delay the mass adoption of a global peer-to-peer protocol, with less centralized points of power and potential corruption.  \r\nAnd if you think about what this actually means, you may come to another conclusion: that most people, who have any position of power in our current system, have an interest in bitcoin not being able to scale.  \r\nBecause if it scales, its game over for most of the power hungry middlemen and intermediaries world wide.  \r\nThe end for the control freaks, wannabe dictators, regulators, puppet masters and parasites.  \r\nThe end for big media, big banks, big tech and big government in its current state.    \r\nThis probably is one of the main reasons why Jack Dorsey is pushing small-block-BTC-Core.  \r\nHe has a conflict of interest with his 2009 founded payment provider business Square/Block-Inc.  \r\nA scalable bitcoin is directly competing with his business.  \r\nAnd his business is mainly about power and control.  \r\nTherefore he and the powers behind him prefer bitcoin to be crippled so they can establish themselves as payment providers to stay in control.  \r\nAll the so called \"second layer solutions\" are not bitcoin and they are introducing intermediaries, middlemen and gatekeepers again - welcome back to the old system which bitcoin initially was meant to replace.   \r\nThey are rich already, but they want to control the payment-, data- and information-streams and those who have access to it.  \r\nThis can be done through intermediaries, middlemen and gatekeepers like Dorsey or Bill Gates and other people in positions of power like them.  \r\nArbitrary censorship and moderation:  \r\n---\r\nThe small blocker narrative took over due to [arbitrary censorship](https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43) and [moderation on bitcointalk and reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/).  \r\nYou can also read [Roger Ver's \"Hijacking Bitcoin\"](https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Hijacking-Bitcoin-Hidden-History-BTC/dp/B0CXWBCWDR?crid=1FNX4EFXUUSOG&sprefix=hijacking+bitcoi%2Caps%2C137&sr=8-1).  \r\nIt is similar to looking back to 2020 and arguing that the media and governments around the world have acted completely ethical and moral during COVID and that people took the vaccination completely unbiased and free from any form of propaganda, censorship or moderation.  \r\nAnd the same people will tell you that the free markets invisible hand has decided and that it was all about the UASF (user activated soft fork).  \r\nMore about the user activated soft fork in another article, but be aware that instead of using the \"proof of work signal\", which can't be faked, it reintroduced the old account voting system, where one person could fake a potential infinite amount of votes - the irony.   \r\nA bitcoin miner has to put his money where his mouth is, whereas a raspberry node essentially can be just an IP-address which is not much of an investment at all and can be faked.  \r\nThere is nothing wrong with having a different opinion.  \r\nI don't even have a problem with censorship and moderation, if the rules are clear up front.  \r\nBut using your power to arbitrarily censor and moderate your opposition on established discussion boards and forums essentially means, that your arguments are too weak to stand on their own.  \r\nYou have lost and time will show.  \r\nTime will always show.  \r\nCompute will always show.  \r\n---\r\nThanks for reading!",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "steffenkd",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": "446dca02b885a3fea3a280d6f303fbe2693670d7841f52239c473e2c660779a4",
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 0,
  "like_count": 0,
  "timestamp": "2026-06-05T10:35:54.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": true,
  "thread_root_tx": null,
  "engagement_score": 0,
  "token_ref": null,
  "token_type": null,
  "kind": null,
  "lat": null,
  "lng": null,
  "category": null,
  "has_access": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "steffenkd",
  "ui_display_name": "steffenkd",
  "ui_handle": "steffenkd",
  "ui_display_raw": "steffenkd",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}