What would Satoshi say about BIP110?

[PepeLapiu]

So we know that core barely acknowledges spam as a problem as they did nothing about spam ever since the spam attack started 5 years go. Core rejected ordinal filters as "too controversial" and recently blew up a spam filter with core 30.

And the now gone Gloria Zhao refered to spam as "use cases we have today" and she implied Satoshi failed to design bitcoin for those "use cases".
source: https://youtu.be/ctks7f-gpaU

Unfortunately, these are all lies. Satoshi was very clear about the idea of accepting " use cases" other than money, when someone tried to burden bitcoin with more bloat and more shit on chain:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Spam apologists also love to claim that nothing can be done about spam and that the fees are the filter. But here is what Satoshi had to say about that:

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

So I think it's pretty obvious, Satoshi didn't think spam can't be stopped. And he was already aware that things other than the fees could and should be done to protect bitcoin from chain bloat.

I think Satoshi would fully support BIP110 today.

[goldphysicalbitcoin]

Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't care about these proposals at all; everything will ultimately be determined by the market, just like the 2017 block size controversy, which eventually led to the fork coin BCH.

[ertil]

Satoshi failed to design bitcoin for those "use cases"

What do you think?  If I made a Bitcoin payment integration for this, would anyone be interested in running it?  It might be the first fully automated service available to buy with Bitcoins.  The advantage it could offer over the free services is general file upload hosting of large files without making downloading users go to the upload site and jump through hoops.  It would give a normal link directly to the file.

See? Satoshi thought seriously about making a service for file hosting, where you could pay with Bitcoins for that. So, what now? Do you still want to dig deeper into what Satoshi said? Or can you now accept the fact, that he is not a God?

Because Satoshi also included User Interface for playing poker in the first Bitcoin client. And there are more such things, which could destroy the perfect image of the "payment only" system.

Also note, that in the old times, there were no altcoins, and we had just fiat, and Bitcoin. And it is natural, that people tried a lot of ideas, which would be rejected today. So, bringing some old posts from Satoshi, or other early adopters, can actually lead to more use cases, instead of less, and this is not what you want, if you try to focus only on payments.

Or, should I mention times, when people tried to integrate Bitcoin client with HTTP servers, and things like that? Would you also scream, that Bitcoin shouldn't do that, and be surprised again, if old posts from early adopters would be quoted?

[nemesis_incarnate]

Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't care about these proposals at all; everything will ultimately be determined by the market, just like the 2017 block size controversy, which eventually led to the fork coin BCH.

Everybody would pick a side, debate, laugh and cry, and in the end, the consensus would be found 

[Ucy]

Ofcourse, if transaction fees can't discourage uploading of large/unrelated data,  then do whatever is right and necessary to stop that from happening. The whitepaper is clear on the purpose of Bitcoin — a  peer-to-peer electronic cash system .
Almost everything going into the Blockchain should be cash related and possibly light, other unrelated things should be non frequent (or barely happen), good, very helpful to the system/owner, do not prevent or slow down the use of Bitcoin for it purpose. In summary, the Bitcoin system should not be abused or misused.

[NeuroticFish]

filter

If I tell you that I don't like the spam, that's a huge understatement.
I'll add that it saddens me greatly that Core did this move - and they did it in this way.

However, adding censorship - for any good reason now - is the road to perdition, so a big no.
Today you filter spam, next you filter "dirty" coins, soon afterwards you filter this or that country, ... sounds like a bright future, isn't it?

Given this, depicting everything in black and white, in "this side holding the truth" and "the other side liars and c***d p**n lovers" is also just as bad and wrong.
Adding Satoshi name into the equation is just a cheap attempt to manipulate the mobs, hence I will not guess for you.

[d5000]

Satoshi would never have supported a BIP which can lead to confiscation of coins. He was quite clear in his whitepaper that Bitcoin was to be a trustless system. Now if everybody can propose a software update which confiscates your coins with the miners' help, then it is not longer a trustless system, because then you have to trust future developers and miners to not confiscate your coins.

One could argue that he actually "confiscated" the coins in the 2010 bug, but these coins were created against the consensus rules every Bitcoin user normally was aware of (the 21 million limit).

I don't know what he'd done exactly, but I guess if spam was a problem he would have called for a development of a better solution without any confiscation. I am also sure he knew the limitations of policy/standardness, as he himself developed the IsStandard() check in version 0.3.18.

My best guess for an emergency anti-spam system which could make data storage a lot more expensive is still a consensus-enforced high dust limit for all outputs except the last one (and that last one shouldn't be allowed to contain OP_RETURN). It could even be tied to the size of the output in the case of OP_RETURN outputs.

[Cypra]

I think this debate mixes two different questions: spam policy and confiscation risk.

I disagree with the idea that “the market decides everything” as a complete answer. Markets matter, but protocol rules still define what kind of market we get. Saying “just let the market handle it” ignores that default node policy and consensus shape incentives long before users can react.

At the same time, I agree with the concern that any proposal must avoid creating a path to arbitrary confiscation. If users feel coins can be reassigned through social pressure and miner coordination, trust in Bitcoin’s neutrality is damaged.

The better approach is to target spam economics directly without affecting ownership guarantees. In other words, raise the cost of abusive patterns, keep validation simple for normal users, and preserve trustless property rights. That seems closer to Bitcoin’s original design goals than either extreme.

[stwenhao]

One could argue that he actually "confiscated" the coins in the 2010 bug

Nothing was "confiscated". Coinbase transactions had below 100 confirmations, so they were safe to reorg, because no miner could move it yet, or consider it "confirmed". And everything else was just confirmed later.

Also, fixing Value Overflow Incident was a soft-fork, not a hard-fork, as some people think. If you apply the old rules to the new client, it will sync everything, which means, that no backward compatibility was broken.

a consensus-enforced high dust limit for all outputs except the last one

Why except the last one?

[hero_the_bossman]

filter

If I tell you that I don't like the spam, that's a huge understatement.
I'll add that it saddens me greatly that Core did this move - and they did it in this way.

However, adding censorship - for any good reason now - is the road to perdition, so a big no.
Today you filter spam, next you filter "dirty" coins, soon afterwards you filter this or that country, ... sounds like a bright future, isn't it?

Given this, depicting everything in black and white, in "this side holding the truth" and "the other side liars and c***d p**n lovers" is also just as bad and wrong.
Adding Satoshi name into the equation is just a cheap attempt to manipulate the mobs, hence I will not guess for you.

Their "courageous fighters with spam" and ours "peeps that allow chain to become a big server for p****".

I agree with the censor part.. It would become the same system BTC was built around and in counter.

[ABCbits]

FWIW, Jameson Lopp made a long blog post about this BIP on https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/.

My best guess for an emergency anti-spam system which could make data storage a lot more expensive is still a consensus-enforced high dust limit for all outputs except the last one (and that last one shouldn't be allowed to contain OP_RETURN). It could even be tied to the size of the output in the case of OP_RETURN outputs.

Personally i would also add change that make script that contain parts that impossible to be executed as non-standard or invalid.

a consensus-enforced high dust limit for all outputs except the last one

Why except the last one?

I would guess it's for change address/UTXO. But in that case, it should limited to 1 new UTXO rather than last UTXO since it would reduce privacy.

[stwenhao]

Personally i would also add change that make script that contain parts that impossible to be executed as non-standard or invalid.

How do you know, if something is "impossible to be executed"? There are many scripts, where you can never be sure about it. For example: many people thought that 37iy592iNBLTPyF4y2iyxpacHsbvV48ZyZ is unspendable, but it was recently moved, by interpreting OP_1 as a fake public key, and making 0-of-1 multisig.

A good example is this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5525584.msg64927364#msg64927364

See, how many coins were moved in the meantime? In some cases, like OP_RETURN, or "OP_FALSE OP_VERIFY", you can be sure about it. But in many cases, you don't know, if something is spendable or not. And what then?

Also, 3Dnnf49MfH6yUntqY6SxPactLGP16mhTUq is an interesting edge case, because 0.04 BTCs out of 0.05 BTCs are spendable, but in a very non-standard way, because some coins existed, before P2SH was activated.

[PepeLapiu]

(...)

You are clearly cherry picking part of his message. If you read the full post, it's clear Satoshi was not suggesting file hosting on the bitcoin chain. But rather a payment method for file hosting sites.

If I tell you that I don't like the spam, that's a huge understatement.
I'll add that it saddens me greatly that Core did this move - and they did it in this way.

However, adding censorship - for any good reason now - is the road to perdition, so a big no.

It's ridiculous to claim that preventing non-monetary data on a monetary network is censorship. It's not.

There are countless shitcoins that are built especially for file sharing and other shitcoin degen stuff. Bitcoin is not a file sharing network. Preventing non-monetary data is required if we want bitcoin to survive.

Preventing you from preaching Judaism in my Muslim temple is not censorship. Your Jew preaching does not belong there. Just as your files and jpegs don't belong on bitcoin.

Filters have been around since the very beginning of bitcoin. It's only shitcoiners who claim that preventing non-monetary data is censorship. Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense.

Today you filter spam, next you filter "dirty" coins, soon afterwards you filter this or that country, ... sounds like a bright future, isn't it?

False equivalency. If you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, fake witness, the Segwit exploit, or the Taproot exploit, you are abusing the network and you should be dealt with aggressively.

And can we for a minute stop pretending that 90,000 nodes don't know the difference between Iranian UTXOs and money jpegs, please?

[BlackBoss_]

Satoshi would never have supported a BIP which can lead to confiscation of coins. He was quite clear in his whitepaper that Bitcoin was to be a trustless system. Now if everybody can propose a software update which confiscates your coins with the miners' help, then it is not longer a trustless system, because then you have to trust future developers and miners to not confiscate your coins.

It's opposite with reasons why Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto and the Bitcoin founder can not support any BIP for coin confiscation.

After failure with MARA mining pool to censor Bitcoin transactions, there are new attempts with BIP110 in order to enforce kind of censorship and even more terrible, coin confiscation on Bitcoin blockchain.
Obsevering Bitcoin mining pools.
https://ir.mara.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1233/correction-marathon-digital-holdings-to-launch-the-first-north-american-based-bitcoin-mining-pool-fully-compliant-with-u-s-regulations
https://ir.mara.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1239/marathon-digital-holdings-becomes-the-first-north-american-enterprise-miner-to-produce-fully-aml-and-ofac-compliant-bitcoin
https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000003f8cb66fe1ecfb38754abc9c4d4a62b71de45fef8777