Core and spam debate - easy explanation

[PepeLapiu]

Actually that user had all their posts removed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3751788
They were just a spammer.

Bullshit! As far as I know he posted one message on two of my threads. I didn't check if he posted anywhere else. One of his post was removed before yesterday, and the next one was removed after yesterday. Neither of the two posts he wrote my my threads were spam.

So the two threads Iwrotee, asking users what is their objection to BIP110, they both got locked. And in the latest attempt the two posters in the thread who were ondicatingbthey are in favor of BIP110 (from two different users) were deleted. But none of the ones against BIP110 were deleted.

And also two people PMd me and warned me any thread that discusses Knots/BIP110 or the spam problem are likely to get lockedofr deleted and I risk getting banned.

And that is my experience so far. I have been on this forum for a long time. I never got censored before. But as soon as I start talking about Knots or BIP110 or the problem of spam, my threads get moved to a section with a lot less traffic and fewer eyeballs. Or my thread gets locked or deleted, and I got banned for a week twice already in the last 6 months or so.

Just look at the achow pinned thread. 12 posts got deleted and 15 remain. All the posts that critisize core 30 got deleted, all the ones in favor of it or neutral remained.

You people are either pathetic censorship goons who want to control what others are allowed to say and read, or you are being controlled by censorship goons.

Since you have your own forum you can talk about your coin there.
Oh wait nobody goes there because nobody cares about lukecoin.

I created the forum specifically because of the censorship on this forum.
And nobody cares about Knots and BIP110 and fighting against spam? Really?

I'll have you know that more people switched to Knots and BIP110 than people who updated to spamware core 30.

And I have good reasons to believe a non-zero number of those core 30 updates were done automatically without the user even knowing about it.

Can't wait till August when you all fork off and leave us alone.

I got bad news for you buddy, we are just getting started.

The OP is right that the debate gets messy with jargon. Core is focused on maintaining a secure, scalable, and decentralized network, which includes handling spam.

That makes no sense, my friend. Core operates a centralized "mempool and relay policy" which they impose on all their nodes. If you run a core node, you don't decide whatt should go in your node's mempool, you don't decide what you want to relay to other nodes. You don't like spam? Too bad, core decided for you that you should be forced to put it in your mempool and relay it to others.

Knots and others argue that spam is a problem that should be addressed with layer-2 solutions or better transaction handling. The key is balancing security and efficiency without compromising decentralization.

Knots users are given full power at the layer one level with comprehensive filters we can use to determine our own mempool are relay policy. With an easy configurable tab where all the filters are easily configurable.

That is the opposite of core which gives you very very little power over your own node. And if you want to change what little parameters core allows you to change, you have to edit .config files, which 99% of node runners have no idea how to do. Core is a disgrace. They don't even acknowledge that there is a spam problem, instead they refer to spam as "use cases we have today" and they referrto spammers as "users who want to upload data to the chain".

BTW my friend, be careful. Two of your posts in my threads were deleted. You will find that if you say anything against spamware core, a lot of your posts will get locked, or moved where fewer people will see them, or deleted. And you might get yourself banned for a week or more.

[DaveF]

Actually that user had all their posts removed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3751788
They were just a spammer.

Bullshit! As far as I know he posted one message on two of my threads. I didn't check if he posted anywhere else. One of his post was removed before yesterday, and the next one was removed after yesterday. Neither of the two posts he wrote my my threads were spam.

Here is a list in all his spamming glory:
https://loyce.club/archive/members/375/3751788.html
42 posts in about a day and a 1/2

I got bad news for you buddy, we are just getting started.

Getting started with what? You have no support except for 1 pool run by the person who created the fork.

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

As the saying goes don't go away mad just go away.

Or would you like to put your money where your mouth is and put up some BTC in a wager?
Oh, wait you have no BTC. And have to beg for some.....

....... So I sold everything I own in Canada, converted everything to bitcoin, and I'm ready to leave to El Salvador with passport in hand.

But I need more funds, due to a major set back in my personal life which forced me to liquidate most of my funds.

And so I would like to offer you the opportunity to invest in my little venture. So I'll be offering shares of the little El Salvador venture.

You have no place here. Nobody cares, we just sit here and poke fun of you and keep responding to your junk posts so nobody accidentally thinks your fork coin is real.

-Dave

[Dogedegen]

Getting started with what? You have no support except for 1 pool run by the person who created the fork.

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

As the saying goes don't go away mad just go away.

It is quite depressing even if they had some in each category because the ecosystem now is so huge and diversified. We would not even be able to list half of all the wallets that exist these days, we usually mostly talk about the same ones starting with Electrum or Trezor. And since they don't even have any support in any category this idea is doomed from the start and has no chance to ever materialize even less chance to materialize by August or whenever their fork date is due. Instead of seeing reason and adapting accordingly, they are insisting in this foolishness and it reminds me of the religious behavior that users displayed during the Bitcoin Cash fork time. People who were clearly wrong refused to admit to and persisted until they hurt themselves.

We have a similar situation here but much worse. In that time, there were even some proposals that had strong industry support one could even say major economic support and they still failed against the user. The proposal here that goes against Core does not have 1 percent support in any relevant stakeholder group.

Or would you like to put your money where your mouth is and put up some BTC in a wager?

They never really do that, they talk big but they never put serious money on the line..

[PepeLapiu]

Getting started with what? You have no support except for 1 pool run by the person who created the fork.

I assume you mean Ocean. If so, you are wrong. Ocean has no ability to force their miners to signal for BIP110. In factyogu canminer with Ocean and run spamware core 30 or spamware LibreRelay if you want.
Luke is with Ocean and he supports BIP110, and he is a major player in this game. They don't have the ability to tell their miners what client to run, or what they are allowed to put in their blocks.
This is his decentralization works.
Those other pools don't have miners, they have hashers who sell their hash to the pool.

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

You think any of that matters?
Let me explain something here. Bitcoin is not a proof of stake coin like ETH controlled by big players. BIP148 and the block war showed up that much.

Big business, big miners, big ASIC makers, big exchanges had no interest in getting Segwit instead of bigger blocks. In fact most of core was not in favor of Segwit. Miner activation was going nowhere until BIP148 made a user activated for and a handful of nodes basically forced the pools into adopting Segwit.

Do you really think miners were really interested in offering 50% fee discount to the users when miner fees were at an all time high? Do you really think miners liked the idea of a 4mb block where only 1mb of that block would require users to payminers fees?

The Montreal accord got together a bunch of large players who all decided on bigger blocks. The nodes gave them the finger and showed them who's running the show here.

It's very difficult to understand for a fiat mind. Bit bitcoin is not controlled by big pools, big CEX, big ASIC makers, or wallet devs. If it were, I would have thrown my hat into the ring a long time ago.

Bitcoin is controlled by the nodes. There is one reason why miners don't ignore the halvening and don't decide to double their reward instead of cutting it in half - because the nodes, the enforcers of the rules, would reject it.

Exchanges don't make the rules.
Big pools don't make the rules.
Core doesn't make the rules (though they thoughthety did)
And walletsdecvs certainly don't make the rules.

All of these actors are employees of the network.

As the saying goes don't go away mad just go away.

Sorry but not sorry. All the bitcointalk censorship would make the problem go away. And all the pretending there is no spam, or you can't figure out what spam is will not make the problem go away. And we will solve the problem with or without you.

Or would you like to put your money where your mouth is and put up some BTC in a wager?

One thing you should know about street fighting - don't play with the other guy's rules. If he tells you no hitting above the shoulders, only hit above the shoulders.

I'm putting a large amountiof my coin into the outcomeiof the fork. But it won't be in some stupid meaningless useless bet. And certain not in a bet a coretard keeps trying to get me into.

I'm putting all my BTC into the fork in a way that will help us win the fork.

Oh, wait you have no BTC. And have to beg for some.....

Nope, wrong again.

You have no place here. Nobody cares, we just sit here and poke fun of you and keep responding to your junk posts so nobody accidentally thinks your fork coin is real.

You are right, I am hated here. Anyone who mentions spam or BIP110 gets heavily censored. Just looknat achow thread pinned in this section. There are 15 comments. All of them positive to spammware 30. And 12 censored comments, all of them taking a stand against spamware 30.
Look at my own tread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.0

The tread gotlockerd within 24 hours, for the second time. And the two comments from two users in favor of BIT110 got deleted.

So if you read the tread, you get the feeling I'm some sort of lone but nobody agrees with.

In reality, the Knots/BIP110 anti-dpam side is winning and gaining grounds. There are more Knots/BIP110 nodes than there are nodes that updated to core 30 spamware. And there are good reasons to believe some of those core 30 numbers are artificial or engineered.

Here is the reality. Bitcoin is set apart from all those other shitcoins because of the nodes.
The nodes are what makes bitcoin decentralized in the middle of highly centralized core, highly centralized pools, and highly centralized exchanges.
Because none of those centralized actors can do anything without the say so of the nodes. Core is learning that the hard way with their stupid pro-spam stance.

And BTW, we already have way more nodes with BIP110 than we did with BIP148. Think about that for a second.....

[ABCbits]

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

You think any of that matters?
Let me explain something here. Bitcoin is not a proof of stake coin like ETH controlled by big players. BIP148 and the block war showed up that much.

Big business, big miners, big ASIC makers, big exchanges had no interest in getting Segwit instead of bigger blocks. In fact most of core was not in favor of Segwit. Miner activation was going nowhere until BIP148 made a user activated for and a handful of nodes basically forced the pools into adopting Segwit.

Do you really think miners were really interested in offering 50% fee discount to the users when miner fees were at an all time high? Do you really think miners liked the idea of a 4mb block where only 1mb of that block would require users to payminers fees?
--snip--

Actual reason some miner, mining pool and Bitmain (one of ASIC maker) reject SegWit is because it would break covert ASICBoost.

Furthermore, covert use of AsicBoost, as it turns out, is largely incompatible with a Segregated Witness soft fork (SegWit), the protocol upgrade proposed by the Bitcoin Core development team.

Business and exchange would benefit from SegWit upgrade, since SegWit TX mostly fix malleability TX issue that fix possible multiple "deposit" issue on their system.

The Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade in 2017 changed the structure of transaction data in Bitcoin.

The main reason for this upgrade was to fix transaction malleability (I'll explain this in a moment). The other significant change was a block size increase.

And from average people perspective, a bit support from exchange or wallet actually matter in case they want to move, buy or sell that coin.

[DaveF]

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

You think any of that matters?

Ah so you want a coin that you can't trade, can't sell, and need a full desktop to do anything with since there are no lite / phone wallets. Got it.

I'm putting a large amountiof my coin into the outcomeiof the fork. But it won't be in some stupid meaningless useless bet. And certain not in a bet a coretard keeps trying to get me into.

Sure you are.....
If you really believed in lukecoin and had any money you would take the bet and then after you won would spend it on promoting lukecoin.

The tread gotlockerd within 24 hours, for the second time. And the two comments from two users in favor of BIT110 got deleted.

So if you read the tread, you get the feeling I'm some sort of lone but nobody agrees with.

In reality, the Knots/BIP110 anti-dpam side is winning and gaining grounds. There are more Knots/BIP110 nodes than there are nodes that updated to core 30 spamware. And there are good reasons to believe some of those core 30 numbers are artificial or engineered.

Your forum has no use
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinismoney/ has just about no activity
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinKnots/ has even less
The few youtube channels that promote it don't seem to have any organic following.

If there are any places that are pro knots and have real activity feel free to share them.


-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Ah so you want a coin that you can't trade, can't sell, and need a full desktop to do anything with since there are no lite / phone wallets. Got it.

Nope, I like the coin I have just fine. I just need to patch it up and fix all the fuckery core and spammers have been doing for the last 4-5 years.
Bitcoin is worth saving. But core? That's up to core itself.

Sure you are.....
If you really believed in lukecoin and had any money you would take the bet and then after you won would spend it on promoting lukecoin.

I'm putting my coin where it will influence the fork, not where meaningless speculation happens. And it's not like I have that much to gamble away anyways.

The tread got locked within 24 hours, for the second time. And the two comments from two users in favor of BIT110 got deleted.
So if you read the tread, you get the feeling I'm some sort of lone but nobody agrees with.
In reality, the Knots/BIP110 anti-dpam side is winning and gaining grounds. There are more Knots/BIP110 nodes than there are nodes that updated to core 30 spamware. And there are good reasons to believe some of those core 30 numbers are artificial or engineered.

Your forum has no use

How strange that your answer has nothing to do what what you quote from me!

If there are any places that are pro knots and have real activity feel free to share them.

I'm not much of a social media guy. Look in the comment section of any video that discuss the subject of the spam war in the last year. Core is getting cooked in the comments.
But if you want a more accurate metric, look on chain at the network. More nodes switched to Knots than updated to core 30 spamware.
I guess 20,000 nodes forget to go on reddit?

And a non-zero number of those core 30 nodes likely were auto updated without the user ever being aware of it. Yup, I think casa offers that as an option. Outrageous! No surprise that casa also supports shitcoin ETH.

Actual reason some miner, mining pool and Bitmain (one of ASIC maker) reject SegWit is because it would break covert ASICBoost.

That is true. And also the fact that Segwit creates a block with 75% of it not requiring miner fees, in a time when miner fees were very very high.

I suspect the only miners who liked Segwit where the minority who did not benefit from ASIC boost.

And from average people perspective, a bit support from exchange or wallet actually matter in case they want to move, buy or sell that coin.

You are talking about a hard fork here. None of that will happen. Wallets and exchanges need to change absolutely nothing, or very little, to be BIP110 compatible.

Those who will suffer the most are spammers, and the coretards that support spammers.

[Dogedegen]

In reality, the Knots/BIP110 anti-dpam side is winning and gaining grounds. There are more Knots/BIP110 nodes than there are nodes that updated to core 30 spamware. And there are good reasons to believe some of those core 30 numbers are artificial or engineered.

Dude, no matter how many times you write this lie it won't make it true. The current reals support behind Knots is less than 1%. The current chance of it having any significance or taking over Bitcoin is 0%. If you fork to an altcoin, the big players will dumb it to the ground when they change keys eventually.

I'm not much of a social media guy. Look in the comment section of any video that discuss the subject of the spam war in the last year. Core is getting cooked in the comments.
But if you want a more accurate metric, look on chain at the network. More nodes switched to Knots than updated to core 30 spamware.
I guess 20,000 nodes forget to go on reddit?

Because paying for fake comments on botted platforms is what represents real support in Bitcoin? I have never found a single supporter of Knots in many old Bitcoin communities where it was talked. Some got fooled a bit by the end of drama claims and temporarily ran Knots or delayed upgrading to Bitcoin Core 30 but they are back.

And a non-zero number of those core 30 nodes likely were auto updated without the user ever being aware of it. Yup, I think casa offers that as an option. Outrageous! No surprise that casa also supports shitcoin ETH.

They will update eventually, don't you worry about it and then you will make up new false things about how that doesn't mean they support it even though you stated that not updating means that they don't support it.

Name 1 major exchange that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 major crypto payment provider that has come out in support of your coin.
Name 1 open source mobile / lite wallet that supports it with some sort of open source back end that has public nodes.

You think any of that matters?

Ah so you want a coin that you can't trade, can't sell, and need a full desktop to do anything with since there are no lite / phone wallets. Got it.

It is a very crazy claim that he makes, with that even some random junk token from Pump.Fun has more relevance and significance behind it. At least they have an exchange listing on a DEX. 

[PepeLapiu]

In reality, the Knots/BIP110 anti-dpam side is winning and gaining grounds. There are more Knots/BIP110 nodes than there are nodes that updated to core 30 spamware. And there are good reasons to believe some of those core 30 numbers are artificial or engineered.

Dude, no matter how many times you write this lie it won't make it true. The current reals support behind Knots is less than 1%.

Other people who read this, go check for yourself how many Knots nodes there are on the network. You'll get between 20 and 25% depending on who's counting.

The idea that there Knots has less than 1% of the network is absurd. We already had over 1% of the nodes BEFORE core decided to nuke a spam filter which kick started the spam war.

If you fork to an altcoin, the big players will dumb it to the ground when they change keys eventually.

Stop it, it's a soft fork. The only way to turn it into a hard fork with two separate coins is his you guys are dumb enough to start a reactive client.

Because paying for fake comments on botted platforms is what represents real support in Bitcoin? I have never found a single supporter of Knots in many old Bitcoin communities where it was talked.

So you are saying there is no support for Knots/BIP110 on social media, and alsonsaying there is a ton of support buy those are all bots? You are contradicting yourself.

What I do know is that 20-25% of the network is now Knots/BIP110. And that every video about core on YT is getting bombarded with insults and negative comments.
You really expect people to believe core blew up a spam filter and all the reactions against it are fake or non-existant?

[ABCbits]

Actual reason some miner, mining pool and Bitmain (one of ASIC maker) reject SegWit is because it would break covert ASICBoost.

That is true. And also the fact that Segwit creates a block with 75% of it not requiring miner fees, in a time when miner fees were very very high.

I suspect the only miners who liked Segwit where the minority who did not benefit from ASIC boost.

"Segwit creates a block with 75% of it not requiring miner fees" is technical non-sense. SegWit actually introduce weight/virtual bytes units where witness data counted just 1/4 of non-witness data. In addition, covert AsicBoost is patented by BitMain, so people who could benefit from it isn't in majority.

This is controversial, in large part because AsicBoost is patented and therefore potentially skews Bitcoin’s mining ecosystem by government regulation.

And from average people perspective, a bit support from exchange or wallet actually matter in case they want to move, buy or sell that coin.

You are talking about a hard fork here. None of that will happen. Wallets and exchanges need to change absolutely nothing, or very little, to be BIP110 compatible.

Those who will suffer the most are spammers, and the coretards that support spammers.

Hard fork isn't the only issue here. I already mentioned about possibility of chain split in past, because some miner/mining pool may include TX that considered as invalid by BIP 110.

[DaveF]

Stop it, it's a soft fork. The only way to turn it into a hard fork with two separate coins is his you guys are dumb enough to start a reactive client.

It will almost immediately result in a chain split that causes lukecoin nodes to fork off onto their own chain.

Just because it follows the rules of of a soft fork and is called a soft fork anyone can see that the second it activates it will cause lukecoin nodes to reject blocks that do not signal bit 4. At that point unless just about every pool switches after a few blocks either way the chain is going to split. It's in the BIP, it's in the code, others have confirmed the way it's going to work.

Unless a bunch of miners come together and start supporting it it's also going to be super simple for one larger miner to force them to fork off. So even it gets 10% or 15% of the miners to support it then it's going to be it's own chain.

-Dave

[ertil]

The only way to turn it into a hard fork with two separate coins is his you guys are dumb enough to start a reactive client.

There is no need for "a reactive client". All you need is just using the old version, and ignoring BIP-110, to fork the chain.

Because the code in Knots forces activation. Which means, that all old clients will reject that chain. Segwit didn't have that. Taproot didn't have that. But Knots tries to force activation in the code, regardless of what miners will do, so it may behave differently.

Also, this is not the first time, when Luke tried to force activation:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/there-are-now-two-taproot-activation-clients-heres-why
https://web.archive.org/web/20210416030248/https://bitcointaproot.cc/

The difference is that previously, Taproot activated in a classical way (before "latest activation block") so both clients landed on the same chain. But if this time it won't be the case, then the chain will fork.

I don't know, maybe Luke needs one example of a BIP, which will fail to activate before some arbitrary point in time, to see the difference. Taproot was not that controversial to trigger that rule, but BIP-110 may do, judging by the current support.

[PepeLapiu]

The only way to turn it into a hard fork with two separate coins is his you guys are dumb enough to start a reactive client.

There is no need for "a reactive client". All you need is just using the old version, and ignoring BIP-110, to fork the chain.

That would result in a chain split, not a hard fork. Chain splits happen all the time. Though they don't happen has much now due to pools being so highly centralized.

Because the code in Knots forces activation. Which means, that all old clients will reject that chain.

That is not correct. All the BIP110 blocks would be valid on the legacy spam chain. But not all legacy spam chain blocks would be valid on the BIP110 chain.

So in theory, if all the miners decided to not signal for BIP110 but still reject large op_return and op_if in Taproot, or if all the spammers decided to go away, there wouldn't be a split at all. Because all blocks are valid on both protocols.

But that is of course not likely to happen. Spammers are not likely to go away to easily and so suddenly.

What is likely to happen is that miners and coretards will put up a fight,bitchz, and scream until the last minute. Than they will have the choice to mine on the legacy spam chain and risk getting some of their blocks, or mine on the BIP110 chain and know all their blocks will be valid. Easy call. Either side risks wipeout, but there is no incentive for a miner to mineoa block that will could be deemed invalid on on of the two chains.

Segwit didn't have that. Taproot didn't have that. But Knots tries to force activation in the code, regardless of what miners will do, so it may behave differently.

Agreed, BIP110 is a contentious fork, not the exact same as Taproot and Segwit. But still not a hard fork.

I think it will be all over within 24 hours.

It will almost immediately result in a chain split that causes lukecoin nodes to fork off onto their own chain.

Both a soft fork and a hard fork would result in a chain split and two separate chains.
But if neither side enables replay protection, than there is no split coin.

My advise is to not broadcast any transaction once the fork is activated. And if you must send some coin, make sure to pay a very generous fee. So both chains pick up your transaction. That way, you are covered, no matter which chain gets wiped out.

Just because it follows the rules of of a soft fork and is called a soft fork anyone can see that the second it activates it will cause lukecoin nodes to reject blocks that do not signal bit 4. At that point unless just about every pool switches after a few blocks either way the chain is going to split. It's in the BIP, it's in the code, others have confirmed the way it's going to work.

Chain splits don't need to result in two separate coins.

Unless a bunch of miners come together and start supporting it it's also going to be super simple for one larger miner to force them to fork off. So even it gets 10% or 15% of the miners to support it then it's going to be it's own chain.

I'm getting my popcorn ready. It'll be fun to watch.

Assuming the BIP110 side wins, do you think core will change it's way and start to fight against spam instead of calling it "use cases we have today"? Do you think this forum will keep censoring dissenting voices as they have been doing for the last year?

[ertil]

Want an inheritance script with a 4 of 8 multisig where one of the 8 keys can only be used after its key holder turns 18?  too bad for you.

Exactly. Let's see, what is more spammy:

Code:

OP_IF
  <timestamp> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
  <pubkeyAlice> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
  OP_0
OP_ENDIF
<pubkeyBob> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyCharlie> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyDaniel> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyElaine> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyFred> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyGeorge> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyHarry> OP_CHECKSIGADD
4 OP_EQUAL

This could be done in a single TapScript branch. And then, we can avoid OP_IF, by making two separate branches. First:

Code:

<timestamp> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
<pubkeyAlice> OP_CHECKSIG
<pubkeyBob> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyCharlie> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyDaniel> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyElaine> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyFred> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyGeorge> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyHarry> OP_CHECKSIGADD
4 OP_EQUAL

And second:

Code:

OP_0
<pubkeyBob> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyCharlie> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyDaniel> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyElaine> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyFred> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyGeorge> OP_CHECKSIGADD
<pubkeyHarry> OP_CHECKSIGADD
4 OP_EQUAL

What is the cost of having two branches? Of course 32 bytes, because we need to go one branch deeper in the TapScript. What is the cost of OP_IF, OP_ELSE, OP_0, and OP_ENDIF? Of course 4 bytes. Which means, that instead of using OP_IF, and pushing four bytes, we go one branch deeper, and use 32 bytes. Congratulations, BIP-110 forced us to push more bytes on-chain, than we otherwise would! Good job, keep going!

And imagine, what would happen, if we would have even more OP_IFs. Of course all of them could be expanded. But each expansion costs us 32 bytes, while regular OP_IF usage, within the same TapScript, could cost us just a few more bytes.

Also, N-of-N multisigs could be done instead. But then, we have to count all possible cases of picking 4 keys out of 8. In how many ways we can pick it? 8*7*6*5=1680. So, we would need a tree with 1680 separate 4-of-4 multisigs. That would mean going 11 steps down the tree (for 10 steps, we would have 1024 combinations, so we need one more, to make a room for up to 2048 options). And then, it would cost 11*32=352 bytes. While the original 4-of-8 multisig would have a single branch, and would cost us 8 public keys, 32-byte each, and some single-byte opcodes, so smaller than that. Yay! Expanded version is more spammy again, thank you BIP-110 for encouraging users to push more bytes on-chain yet again!

So, it turns out again, that the cure is worse than the disease. OP_IF and OP_ENDIF means two more bytes. Maybe with OP_ELSE and some data it could turn into four, maybe few bytes more. But no, let's ban OP_IF, let's force all users to expand all conditions, and take 32 more bytes each time, when we will want to double the number of all cases. Great! Not to mention the cost of computing for example 1680 leaves, the cost of hashing them, and making a proper tree, instead of just using a simple all-in-one TapScript, which would take less bytes than that.

[PepeLapiu]

What is the cost of having two branches? Of course 32 bytes, because we need to go one branch deeper in the TapScript. What is the cost of OP_IF, OP_ELSE, OP_0, and OP_ENDIF? Of course 4 bytes. Which means, that instead of using OP_IF, and pushing four bytes, we go one branch deeper, and use 32 bytes. Congratulations, BIP-110 forced us to push more bytes on-chain, than we otherwise would! Good job, keep going!

You are being obtuse. In the six months that the BIP110 there has been tons of spam/core defenders who tell us about those mythical monetary users of op_if in Taproot. But not a single person has come out and said "I'm using it, I need it, I don't want that feature gone."
So, in essence, other than spammers, nobody uses op_if in Taproot.

Also, N-of-N multisigs could be done instead. But then, we have to count all possible cases of picking 4 keys out of 8. In how many ways we can pick it? 8*7*6*5=1680. So, we would need a tree with 1680 separate 4-of-4 multisigs. That would mean going 11 steps down the tree (for 10 steps, we would have 1024 combinations, so we need one more, to make a room for up to 2048 options). And then, it would cost 11*32=352 bytes. While the original 4-of-8 multisig would have a single branch, and would cost us 8 public keys, 32-byte each, and some single-byte opcodes, so smaller than that. Yay! Expanded version is more spammy again, thank you BIP-110 for encouraging users to push more bytes on-chain yet again!

Nobody knows WTF you are talking about. Stupid fucking devs who just want more toys to play with and make smart contracts are ruining bitcoin. Let's make bitcoin money first and keep it that way. Than if you can show you can make bitcoin programmable money with smart contracts, we'll let you play with your new toy of you can demonstrate you can do it without opening the door to tons of spam.

Got it?

Because so far, you have failed at preserving bitcoin as money. We are taking your stupid toys away until you can play responsibly.

So, it turns out again, that the cure is worse than the disease. OP_IF and OP_ENDIF means two more bytes. Maybe with OP_ELSE and some data it could turn into four, maybe few bytes more. But no, let's ban OP_IF, let's force all users to expand all conditions, and take 32 more bytes each time, when we will want to double the number of all cases. Great! Not to mention the cost of computing for example 1680 leaves, the cost of hashing them, and making a proper tree, instead of just using a simple all-in-one TapScript, which would take less bytes than that.

99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs.
Unlike the devs who brought us the Taproot disaster, we are not wreckless, no "speedy trisls" here, we get to try BIP110 for a year until it expires. Than we either drop it, or fix it, or improve it. This is how upgrading of the most important software on the planet should be done.
Suck it up princess. Maybe we'll give you your toys back if you learn to play nice and not bring in an army of spammers with you, than claim they are "interesting use cases".

[Dogedegen]

Dude, no matter how many times you write this lie it won't make it true. The current reals support behind Knots is less than 1%.

Other people who read this, go check for yourself how many Knots nodes there are on the network. You'll get between 20 and 25% depending on who's counting.

You are being unfair again intentionally. If I go now and create many nodes for Bitcoin Core 30 and with the number suppress the Knots number of nodes down to 1% you will say that does not count they are fake nodes. If I do it slowly over a longer period of time, you will still say it does not count. But here for the Knots case you are doing exactly that, you are saying that node count is a measure of support even if it can be faked quite easily? Be fair and do not use false metrics to support wrong positions. Node count can be faked easily at low cost in many ways so it is not used like this.

The idea that there Knots has less than 1% of the network is absurd. We already had over 1% of the nodes BEFORE core decided to nuke a spam filter which kick started the spam war.
Other people who read this, go check for yourself how many Knots nodes there are on the network. You'll get between 20 and 25% depending on who's counting.

That is false, and support has been lost. You do not have 1% support in any key group, users, developers, miners, ecosystem. Nobody wants to support this radical idea.

What is likely to happen is that miners and coretards will put up a fight,bitchz, and scream until the last minute. Than they will have the choice to mine on the legacy spam chain and risk getting some of their blocks, or mine on the BIP110 chain and know all their blocks will be valid. Easy call. Either side risks wipeout, but there is no incentive for a miner to mineoa block that will could be deemed invalid on on of the two chains.

I would bet my life savings at Polymarket that this will not happen if you give me good odds. Are you willing to place your money for this easy call vision? It is easy to talk big in a nonsense way without actually having to risk anything to back it up, anyone can do that. Why not open a prediction bet for this thing? If you are so sure you can get rich easy.

My advise is to not broadcast any transaction once the fork is activated.

You are imaging the importance of this wrong idea. No more than a handful of users will do anything at all during time. 99 percent of all users are going to act as nothing is happening in those days, they will not delay making transactions.

[DaveF]

......So in theory, if all the miners decided to not signal for BIP110 but still reject large op_return and op_if in Taproot, or if all the spammers decided to go away, there wouldn't be a split at all. Because all blocks are valid on both protocols......

From here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Deviations_from_BIP9

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

Could be 100% lukecoin compliant and it's still getting rejected as invalid if they don't signal.
Plain and simple. You need to signal or it rejects the block.

Once it's reached locked in then yes. BUT all you need is 1 block to be mined during the previous re-target period that is acceptable to one and not the other and you have a chain split.

BTC Las Vegas is coming up in 3 weeks, lets see if anyone there that actually has miners plans to mine on the 110 fork.


-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

You are being unfair again intentionally. If I go now and create many nodes for Bitcoin Core 30 and with the number suppress the Knots number of nodes down to 1% you will say that does not count they are fake nodes.

You are the one being unrealistic here.
I have a bitcoin business. I moved to El Salvador to expand my business. I talkwity bitcoiners every day, from all around the world. The vast majority of those who run a node switched to Knots or BIP110.
I also maintain a Signal group. Most of them current or former clientsonf mine. Most of them who run a node run Knots or BIP110.
Every YT video that discusses spam and core gets core absolutely blasted in the comments.
And on X the core channel gets blasted too.
No idea about other social media.
On chain it's 25% of the nodes being Knots or BIP110.

I was at a Bitcoin conference here in El Salvador. Everyone there hates core.

But you proclaim all of this is all fake? Bots and fake nodes?

That is false, and support has been lost. You do not have 1% support in any key group, users, developers, miners, ecosystem.

Given your user name, it's prettycleatr you don't think all the spam and shitcoinery on bitcoin is really a problem. So it's no surprise that you also think it's all fake.

Nobody wants to support this radical idea.

My idea is radical?
Core tried once to blow up the op_return filter and it was hugely unpopular and controversial. They tried again a year later, and this time they kicked out and silenced those who were protesting it.

The filter had been running for 11 years. And it suddenly became a tool of centralization and censorship?
And my idea is radical? Closing the op_return limit at the consensus level is the radical idea after it was there for 11 years at the policy level?

99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs. And attempting to fix just one of the exploits that allow this mess in Taproot is the radical idea here?
GTFOH.

I would bet my life savings at Polymarket that this will not happen if you give me good odds. Are you willing to place your money for this easy call vision? It is easy to talk big in a nonsense way without actually having to risk anything to back it up, anyone can do that. Why not open a prediction bet for this thing? If you are so sure you can get rich easy.

I already explained thattakinfg bets won't do shit. Betting on your sports team doesn't increase their chance of winning. I'm putting my funds to work where it will help increase ourchancces of winning. Not wasting my fine and funds on stupid bets.

......So in theory, if all the miners decided to not signal for BIP110 but still reject large op_return and op_if in Taproot, or if all the spammers decided to go away, there wouldn't be a split at all. Because all blocks are valid on both protocols......

From here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Deviations_from_BIP9

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

I'm not going to waste my time reading your link if the author can't even get the BIP number right.
It's BIP110, not BIP9.

[DaveF]

......So in theory, if all the miners decided to not signal for BIP110 but still reject large op_return and op_if in Taproot, or if all the spammers decided to go away, there wouldn't be a split at all. Because all blocks are valid on both protocols......

From here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Deviations_from_BIP9

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

I'm not going to waste my time reading your link if the author can't even get the BIP number right.
It's BIP110, not BIP9.

Man you are a special kind of stupid. That is the actual link to the actual github for your censoring bip.
Since it was obvious that you can't read I tagged it to where it was stated they are going to mark blocks as invalid.

Go here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki and scroll most of the way to the bottom and you can read it yourself.

......
I have a bitcoin business. I moved to El Salvador to expand my business. I talkwity bitcoiners every day, from all around the world. The vast majority of those who run a node switched to Knots or BIP110.
I also maintain a Signal group. Most of them current or former clientsonf mine. Most of them who run a node run Knots or BIP110.

Well according to the network map there are 2 nodes in El Salvador

https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=el+salvador

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

That would mean going 11 steps down the tree (for 10 steps, we would have 1024 combinations, so we need one more, to make a room for up to 2048 options). And then, it would cost 11*32=352 bytes. While the original 4-of-8 multisig would have a single branch, and would cost us 8 public keys, 32-byte each, and some single-byte opcodes, so smaller than that. Yay! Expanded version is more spammy again, thank you BIP-110 for encouraging users to push more bytes on-chain yet again!

Worse, they limit the tree depth to _7_, which makes that literally impossible to represent in bip110-coin.