Luke Dash Jr. to attempt a Hard Fork to save Bitcoin?

[pooya87]

Is this actually true, or is it mere FUD?

This is so out of context and incomplete for us to judge what it really is at this point. All we can say right now is that Luke has a history of saying craziest things and if what they are describing is correct, this is yet another pathetic attempt at creating a forkcoin that is doomed to fail before it even starts.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe not. First of all the miners will not support such a proposal if it means their revenue could go down. Second of all the exchanges will actually drop Core - the reference implementation, and list Knots, a fork, as "BTC". It would cause instability within the community and therefore the price of the asset. They won't allow that in my personal opinion.

But it's a game of incentives. Let them do their hard fork, and let's see which side of the fork the miners, the economic majority, and the people like Saylor believe they are more incentivized.

They can do it like how Roger Ver team did with Bitcoin Cash. There will be hashrate fight and miners will split in first days, weeks or months of hard fork until time they gradually realize that it is best to stay with Bitcoin blockchain, not a fork chain called Knot chain.

It happened with Bitcoin Cash blockchain and there will be some first uncertain months in mining community and the market too. Eventually Bitcoin will win like how it beat Bitcoin Cash down so far.

It will be similar to many failed and even dead fork coins.

That's what I already said in my post. Luke Dash Jr. and the filter boys can't risk destroying Bitcoin by pushing for their hard fork - if the leak is real. They could try, but from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together - the INCENTIVES, then the there's a high probability that the entities that matter in Bitcoin Land will continue to support the Core Developers.

[ertil]

Is this actually true, or is it mere FUD?

It doesn't matter, because doing it as a hard-fork is a bad idea. So, if anyone will try to do that, then it will be just yet another altcoin.

I don't know, why developers with that much experience think, that it can be done only as a hard-fork. It is quite easy to notice, that it can be done as a no-fork (not even a soft-fork), because any node, at any time, can always say "I don't have it", when asked about any block or transaction. And then, ZK-proofs can be provided in a different P2P message, for new nodes, which could handle it correctly.

only with a "multisig committee" which decides what to remove or not, which would be extremely problematic

I don't understand, why people do need any "multisig committee" at all. Because if you have ZK-proofs, then you can enable them for all transactions. There is no need to pick, which transaction should went through ZK-proof, and which one shouldn't. If the end goal is to make it easier to process the chain, then everything should be treated with ZK-proofs, because it is better to speedup everything, and not only some portion of the chain, and keep the rest slower, and handled in old, plaintext way.

wouldn't it then better to simply allow all full nodes to ignore all non-financial data?

But they can. It can be a no-fork. For example: some nodes are storing transactions in compressed form. And they didn't fork the chain to get there. If you can compress and decompress any transaction on-the-fly, then you can stay compatible with the protocol.

Also, refusing to provide a transaction or a block in plaintext, is a similar thing, as when you seed a torrent file. If one peer doesn't have it, then another peer will. The only problem is when nobody has it, but in case of payments, it could simply mean, that nobody needs it, and then that single coin can become unspendable in practice (and can be easily made spendable again, if anyone will find that data later).

So, the better approach is to push all transactions through ZK-proofs, no matter if they are payments or not.

I still don't get if an Hardfork saves Bitcoin how is it still Bitcoin?

It is not. Even when we run out of timestamps in 2106, then it could be also solved with a soft-fork. In that case, old nodes could see for example constantly reorged chain, while new nodes could see it smoothly going forward. But old and new nodes can live in the same network, if needed.

I think sometimes these people forget that block zero has a message in OP_RETURN.

It doesn't, because it is in the coinbase input instead. The meaning of OP_RETURN was different then, because you could spend anything with "OP_TRUE OP_RETURN".

Also, no consensus rule forces you to store the content of the Genesis Block, because it is unspendable. You can just keep its hash, if you want to, or stick to the 80-byte header, if you want to be safe. But the content of transaction 4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b can be entirely removed, and you will end up in the same chain, as long as your node wouldn't allow changing the first block from 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f to anything else.

Because the first transaction is unspendable, so it is never stored in the UTXO set in the first place. You need it only to prove, that the chain started in 2009, and not in 1970. But on the protocol level, the Genesis Block is hardcoded, so as long as SHA-256 is strong, you don't need to store it in your node.

you should never change the rules of the game in the middle

It is clearly false, because otherwise, we wouldn't have any soft-forks. Also, in that case, we would have something more similar to BIP-17, instead of BIP-16. And then, instead of introducing any new opcodes, we would always wrap everything in the long chain of old ones.

The problem is Taproot Witness - do they want to change that?

Why not? For example: signet blocks have 1 MB max witness size, instead of 4 MB. Which means 250 kB legacy space in practice. And that change would be at least consistent with 300 kB blocks, proposed by Luke-Jr. So, if they would shrink blocks, it would be at least consistent. And fortunately, mining smaller blocks is a no-fork, because miners can mine even empty blocks, with only the coinbase transaction, if they want to. So, pools controlled by Luke-Jr, can decide to shrink blocks they produce, and contribute to the smaller total blockchain size.

[gmaxwell]

Luke Dash Jr. and the filter boys can't risk destroying Bitcoin by pushing for their hard fork - if the leak is real. They could try, but from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together - the INCENTIVES, then the there's a high probability that the entities that matter in Bitcoin Land will continue to support the Core Developers.

I think it's the opposite-- them making a consensus incompatible fork would mitigate risks for everyone.   Much better to offer their censored bitcoin onto the market and let people voluntarily choose to adopt or reject it than continue to try to force their ideology onto many people who don't want it.  Otherwise no matter how much success they have they'll always think that their efforts would have worked better if not for that last bit of anti-censorship sentiment holding back their intended outcome, etc.  It's really win/win for everyone.

Of course, they are of the view that people *want* their filtered vision, but if that's correct then their fork will be very successful.  The failure to pursue those avenues before now or not at all is kind of an admission that they know they're trying to force a thing on people that the people don't want, out of a sense of superiority.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong here.

I think most long time Bitcoiners who see bitcoin's value primarily coming from its relative independence from human judgement, its privacy, censorship resistance, etc. would *rather* choose preserving those properties over the widest public participation if it did come down to that.  But it won't because those same properties are what make Bitcoin worth having in the first place.  If you didn't want those, you'd just use paypal or whatever.

[stwenhao]

them making a consensus incompatible fork would mitigate risks for everyone

Yes. If they want to shoot themselves in their foot, then they shouldn't be stopped.

Of course, they are of the view that people *want* their filtered vision, but if that's correct then their fork will be very successful.

I wonder, what would happen, if some people would show them, that filters don't work, because filtering the private keys is hard. And storing data there is possible, even BitMEX knows about it: https://blog.bitmex.com/the-unstoppable-jpg-in-private-keys/

Another interesting thing is to try to apply ZK-proofs everywhere. Because even if some data "looks" random, then you can find many patterns, and reuse random values for different purposes. Which means, that they can say: "we don't filter that, because it is just a regular payment". And someone else can reply with "we have to filter that too, because this is used as a seed, to generate Super Mario Bros level in the MARIO protocol". Which means, that once filters will be deployed, they will be applied to more and more transactions, and finally, they will be applied everywhere.

If you didn't want those, you'd just use paypal or whatever.

Or signet. Because "multisig committee" is already implemented there, because signet miners have full control over what is included in the chain, and because it is the simplest implementation, which can combine Bitcoin and CBDC.

Also, deploying signet on top of mainnet is actually a soft-fork (and can be easily turned into a no-fork), so if they would be serious, then they would never think about any hard-forks for such use cases, because it is quite obvious, how to do them in soft-fork or no-fork ways.

[Wind_FURY]

Luke Dash Jr. and the filter boys can't risk destroying Bitcoin by pushing for their hard fork - if the leak is real. They could try, but from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together - the INCENTIVES, then the there's a high probability that the entities that matter in Bitcoin Land will continue to support the Core Developers.

I think it's the opposite-- them making a consensus incompatible fork would mitigate risks for everyone.   Much better to offer their censored bitcoin onto the market and let people voluntarily choose to adopt or reject it than continue to try to force their ideology onto many people who don't want it.  Otherwise no matter how much success they have they'll always think that their efforts would have worked better if not for that last bit of anti-censorship sentiment holding back their intended outcome, etc.  It's really win/win for everyone.

That will be a sad moment, and that would definitely mean that they have successfully co-opted Bitcoin. Maybe you're right that it's going to be a "win/win" for everyone, BUT I personally believe that if truly Knots is adopted and actually starts a culture that "some censorship" is "OK" in Bitcoin, then the Bitcoiners in that future will probably look back and say that the anti-censorship crowd was right.

Of course, they are of the view that people *want* their filtered vision, but if that's correct then their fork will be very successful.  The failure to pursue those avenues before now or not at all is kind of an admission that they know they're trying to force a thing on people that the people don't want, out of a sense of superiority.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong here.

I think most long time Bitcoiners who see bitcoin's value primarily coming from its relative independence from human judgement, its privacy, censorship resistance, etc. would *rather* choose preserving those properties over the widest public participation if it did come down to that.  But it won't because those same properties are what make Bitcoin worth having in the first place.  If you didn't want those, you'd just use paypal or whatever.

It will be very funny if the exchanges/economic majority give the ticker "BTC" to the Knots side of the fork, but the price of Core-BTC will be higher/more valued by the market, which could also mean higher hashing power.

[hd49728]

It will be very funny if the exchanges/economic majority give the ticker "BTC" to the Knots side of the fork, but the price of Core-BTC will be higher/more valued by the market, which could also mean higher hashing power.

It is ridiculous if any big exchange gives that ticker to Knot while it is a shorter chain compares to Bitcoin original chain. Such exchanges will be known later as supporting scammers, I of course don't call Luke as a scammed now but history shows that months or years later the Segwit fork, people realized Bitcoin Cash is a scam and call Roger Ver as a scammer.

The BTC ticker only deserves to be assigned to a longest chain, not a shorter one, and I strongly believe that Knot chain won't win against Bitcoin original chain.

[justinlamode]

I just laughed when I read that part that says "save Bitcoin" because that was all they claimed for the precious forks of Bitcoin yet they all turn out to be shitcoins. Luke is just looking for opportunity to cash out, simple. A hard fork of Bitcoin does not produce any solution, just another shitcoin.

[Satofan44]

Of course, they are of the view that people *want* their filtered vision, but if that's correct then their fork will be very successful.

This is an exaggeration. The world is not black and white, it is most certainly not divided into two groups. Those who want filters and those that don't. It is very nuanced. I would like us to try block any spam as much as possible, but obviously not in the ways that are proposed here. They are terrible and go against everything that Bitcoin stands for.

The BTC ticker only deserves to be assigned to a longest chain, not a shorter one, and I strongly believe that Knot chain won't win against Bitcoin original chain.

This part is not even worth the discussion.

Such a fork has a 0% chance of succeeding. You can safely ignore it.

[cr1776]

I'm thinking there is somewhere between zero and no chance this would happen. Nobody is gonna use Lukecoin. However, it is great clickbait -- highly appealing for nerds like ourselves.

I think sometimes these people forget that block zero has a message in OP_RETURN. What they want to do is make this message disappear?

Satoshi's message in the genesis block isn't actually stored via OP_RETURN, its stored in the coinbase data. Even if it was in OP_RETURN it couldn't ever be deleted because it is hardcoded into the software.

I agree.  A hard fork to Lukecoin could easily happen, but who would use it?  To really understand it I would recommend reading the bitcoin dev list.


For example, there are usually reasonably well reasoned discussions, e.g.:
https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/o3JZhiOa2PQ/m/Kpvxs7qUAAAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[joker_josue]

~~

Unfortunately there are many people who like to spit on the plate where they ate.

These are people who have made millions with Bitcoin, and now they think they have the right to want to rule how Bitcoin works.

Create Whatever crypto want is leave Bitcoin alone. Developers like this Bitcoin doesn't need..

[OutOfMemory]

~~

Unfortunately there are many people who like to spit on the plate where they ate.

These are people who have made millions with Bitcoin, and now they think they have the right to want to rule how Bitcoin works.

Create Whatever crypto want is leave Bitcoin alone. Developers like this Bitcoin doesn't need..

So better "Knot Bitcoin" than "Not Bitcoin" (the fork)?
I agree.

On second thought, adding functionality always introduces new problems, the Knots controversy is a great example.
Mix this with a couple of Egos and then it's only about them, no more about the subject/solution.

[Wind_FURY]

It will be very funny if the exchanges/economic majority give the ticker "BTC" to the Knots side of the fork, but the price of Core-BTC will be higher/more valued by the market, which could also mean higher hashing power.

It is ridiculous if any big exchange gives that ticker to Knot while it is a shorter chain compares to Bitcoin original chain. Such exchanges will be known later as supporting scammers, I of course don't call Luke as a scammed now but history shows that months or years later the Segwit fork, people realized Bitcoin Cash is a scam and call Roger Ver as a scammer.

The BTC ticker only deserves to be assigned to a longest chain, not a shorter one, and I strongly believe that Knot chain won't win against Bitcoin original chain.

I'm merely basing the post on what we have seen during the block size wars. It was a minority that had the miners bend to their will when some the most influential developers and individuals from the economic majority started to support the UASF.

  👀

Plus in case you forget, Luke Dash Jr. was one of the most influential/one of the most vocal supporters of the UASF. Although, I believe it was when Eric Lombrozo and some of the other Core Developers that made more impact when they started supporting the UASF.

[BobLawblaw]

Luke needs to be loaded into a cannon and shot into space.