Biggest one it will activate without miner support.
The big pools are actively attacking bitcoin with the use of spamware like SlupStream and LibreRelay. Boylth expressly designed to facilitate spam and bypass the will of the nodes. It is my beliefthey big pools are presently running a spam cartel we should call the LibreRelay cartel.
I don't think we should look to them for guidance.
By the code that is in Knots and a couple of other 110 implementations once you hit block 961632 it will deem any block it does not like as invalid.
As of now ~ 4 months away there is very little miner support so it will probably cause a fork.
I don't think it's going to unfold the way you think it will. I think miners and coretards will all claim until the very last minute that they will resist and it won't work. But at the last minute, big pools will have to get into the BIP110 side of the fork.
2nd one is that it will not solve the spam problem.
You like to use analogy the if your barn does not have cats / traps it will have more mice then a barn that does.
There is no one quick solution that ends all spam just like there us no mouse trap or cat that kills all the mice.
99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust. Clearly Taproot is not used as intended. We need to rethink or fix Taproot. Ending op_if in Taproot is a good start.
Out here in the real world, if you make the barn inhospitable the rats move into your home next to the barn. And into your garage and eat the wiring in you car and deeper into the field causing more damage to crops.
You are taking the analogy a bit too far. In the real world, incentives shape behavior. If you create an hostile environment for spammers, there will be fewer spammers.
Will they find an other way to spaminf we plug one hole? Probably. That we can plug that hole too. And after a while their investors get nervous and decode to move on to where they are welcomed.
The first most important filter is at the social layer. When we act aggressively against spammers, they get nervous. Just look at the blockchain right now. Fees are very very low, yet the mere threat of BIP110 is causing a great reduction of spam activity on chain.
A few months ago, over 40% of the block content was all spam. Now there is barely any spam. We don't know how much of it is due to the threat of BIP110, but we know it has some effect.
Spammers will not stop, so you have to figure out a way to deal with it. Now, most of the spammers are in the barn. You want to put them in the house / field / car.
You seem to view spam as if it were some immutable force of nature. When confronted with spam, Satoshi said :
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.
But the majority of core defenders seem to read it like this: "Only fees are the filter, and nothing else should be allowed as it would constitute cebsorship."
I reject that idea.
Is there a better way? I don't know. What I do know is that 110 is not the way.
If you are waiting for a fix all one solution that ends allspam, that is never going to happen. Yes, fightingspanm is a perpetual game of whack-a-mole. But in this game, the mole actually comes out of the hole and invades the room. When you stop whacking, you get infested with spam.
Luckily, BIP110 is temporary for a year. So if it does actually do anything wrong, we can fix it after the year is over.
It will confiscate coins-- have any presigned timelock coins that pay to a complicated multisig -- your coins are gone.
As I already explained, 99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs. Of the remaining 1%, we have no idea how many of them actually make use of op_if opcode in Taproot. But we do know that all of them done before the fork will be grandfathered in. So that leaves oy that portion of the 1% that decide to use op_if in Taproot after the fork activates. And still, should that happen, you would be able to cashiit in after the fork expires a year later.
The problem is that op_if in Taproot is obviously being used overwhelmingly for spam. Anyone using of_if in Taproot for genuine monetary transactions is making really bad use of it. More on that here:A
https://youtu.be/JPE7X_q3A7AI find that the BIP110 approach, being temporary and all, is a good way to minimize confiscation of genuine monetary use. And I'm willing to bet nobody really uses op_if in Taproot for genuine monetary transactions.
It also raddically hobbles bitcoin, taking out almost all the smart contracting functionality, almost all the forward extensibility (e.g. security against quantum computers) because it so radically reduces the system's abilities.
It's obvious that Taproot has done more damage than good so far. We need to fix it. If we can't have smart contracts without 99% of it being spam dust UTXOs, I would prefer to do away with it all.
As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer to completely flush the Taproot baby witynthe water. Taproot has been a disaster so far. We should fix Taproot, or do away with it.
The scripts they block aren't even usless stuff.
If you use op_of in Taproot for your inheritance planning, you are making really bad use of it. Again, 99% of Taproot outpiluts are spammy dust UTXOs. At what point are we going to decide to fix it? One thing for sure, we can't count on shitcoin backed cieevdevs tofisx the problem. They don't even think therevus a problem. They refer to spam as "use cases we have today" and they think the solution to big pools accepting spam is to "match the nodes mempool to what miners what to mine.". That's like adjusting the posted speed limit to the speed people drive at. It's retarded.
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. It not anyone elses job to get to decide how you secure your coins-- even if you do want to do something silly, but in this case the priests of bip110 have decided that you can't use bitcoin in any way more complicated than they use it.
If the overwhelming majority of Taprrot uses are spam (99% of it) it'supt us to fix the problem. Don't wait for core to fix it. They'll just change the documentation to make a bug into a feature.
The authors don't reply to these criticisms at all, or just call people raising them pedophiles. Insane.
I haven't heard of anyone on my side calling you pedophiles. But I have been called a pedophile several times for merely bringing to the idea that it's likely to happen on Bitcoin. And here are the most likely contingencies to do this:
- Some degenerate who doesn't want the fish of keeping those files on his local machine and decides to dump the legal/moral/social risk on the 100,000 nodes.
- Some state/bank level attacker who wants to stop or slow down bitcoin adoption and greatly reduce the number of nodes to further centralize bitcoin.
- Some shitcoiner who thinks this is likely to promote his own shitcoin
- Some whale trader who positions himself to benefit from the resulting price drop.
- And even someone on my side who wants to drum up support for BIP110 or give us a giant "told you so" foam finger.
It's not an if, but a when will this happen.
It would be hard to imagine any justification for such a radical undermining of Bitcoin's functionality, doubly so to violate Bitcoin's deepest principles in causing funds loss or even just forcing people to move their coins to different scripts, for those who can in order to avoid loss. ... but in the case of 110, it's all performative bullshit that is for nothing: the proposals author admit it won't meaningfully block "spam".
It will block at least two cases of spam: op_return larger than 83 bytes, and the most hegregious use of op_if in Taproot for spammers. I'll only be too happy to see those two cases of spam finally dealth with.
Once BIP110 is implemented, we will have sent a signal that spam will no longer be tolerated. We will no longer acceth the bullsjit that we perpetually have to compromise for spam by fear they might use fake pubkeys.
The whole purpose of it is just to show the world that the proposals authors have power over others-- that they decide who gets to use bitcoin and how, that if you fall out of favor they'll block your coins too. Well so sad for them because that isn't how Bitcoin works and their proposal is DOA.
Anyone can and will still be able to use bitcoin, if you want to use it as money. But if you want to use bitcoin as a file sharing app, you will be dealth with with extreme prejudice.
You are welcomed to use bitcoin to buy your pancake or your jpeg. But neither your pancake nor your jpeg belong on the bitcoin chain.
Yet even though it's DOA this fact isn't completely and immediately clear to everyone-- and so the proposal has a real cost: people scared off bitcoin because of the prospect of the rules (and their coin ownership) being ripped out from under them, negative attention from their insane fearmongering and made up pure fantasy excuses for their proposals, and an enormous loss of time for others to advocate against this stupidity and to stem the bleeding from the first point by making it clear that it isn't something that is going to happen to your coins.
Core went too far in fundamentally trying to change bitcoin into a file sharing app by blowing up a filter that had been in place for over a decade. They didn't listen to the users. They got too cocky. The situation will be testified.
Bitcoin will be better off the faster all the BIP110 proponents are ejected from the system. Hopefully they never return.
I don't think it will happen as you predict. Hopefully, the spammers will be ejected. Real bitcoiners who want to preserve bitcoin as cash will survive and win.
