Your objection to BIP110 ??

[PepeLapiu]

So this is my third attempt at getting this discussion going. My previous two attempts were rapidly censored by coretard mod(s) who don't want you to discuss this subject in a civil manner. The last two attempts saw the thread frozen and all comments agreeing with BIP110 deleted. That way it looks like I'm some lone nut nobody agrees with. So if you post a comment in support of BIP110, get ready to see the thread locked and your post deleted.

Let's see how long it lasts this time before the censorship Nazis show up.




I want to know what are your objections to BIP110 proposed for late August which will remove two of the most egregious ways of spamming bitcoin.

Please avoid personal attacks to anyone or your post will be deleted. That I'm stupid or that Luke Dashjr strangles cute puppies with his bare hands, those are not valid or productive points to make.

Please also state your position on spam. Do you think spam is a problem on bitcoin right now? If so, do you think core is addressing the problem correctly right now?




Allow me to address what I consider the most important objection against BIP110 - the op_if in Taproot confiscation risk.

The idea is that if you create a transaction with op_of in Taproot in a genuine monetary way, your coin could get confiscated.

First, let me assure you that any script with op_if on Taproot broadcasted before the fork is initiated, your coin will be grandfathered inamnd your coin will be safe. This risk of confiscation is only possible if you broadcast your transaction after the fork isinitiatesd, and if so, only during the temporary period of 1 year, after which your coin will be made spendable again.

Also it's important to know that 99% of the Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs, not monetary transactions.

Of that remaining 1% of genuine monetary Taproot transactions, only a very small numbern, if any at all, do make use of op_if in Taproot. And in fact for the last 6 months that BIP110 has been debated, many people have claimed that some genuine monetary use of op_if in Taproot exist but nobody gas yet come out and proclaimed they are making use of it. So it's very likely that nobody is genuinely making use of op_if in Taproot other than for spam reasons with dust outputs.

The use of op_if in Taproot is a very advanced, complicated, and experimental way to use bitcoin.it's likely that most of you never heard of it before BIP110 entered stage left, and the discussion started.

I'm of the opinion that 99.9% of users of op_if in Taproot are spammers. Maybe even 100% but that's impossible to know since we have no way of knowing, due to the privacy features in Taproot.

And so, if such genuine users of op_if in Taproot exist, they are given a year of warning to not make use of it after the fork is started. And should the users and wallets both ignore the warning, their coin will only be made unspendable for the 1 year period of the temporary fork.

Given that we have no knowledge of anyone using op_if in Taproot for genuine monetary use, I think it's an entirely safe and sensible way of correcting the problem that Taproot has created and that core has refused to address in the last 5 years.

[(BTC)]

You're annoying as fuck. You should be banned for spamming at this point. Can you keep one thread open for your crusade, please? Why do you feel the need to keep re-creating self moderated threads?

110 is going to ironically enrich everyone you and your psycho censorship nutball community hates by creating a fork when they selll the forkcoins. Doesn't seem like a smart way to spend your energy.

[PepeLapiu]

It will confiscate coins-- have any presigned timelock coins that pay to a complicated multisig

Context is needed here. Users and wallets will have almost a year to correct their behavior before the fork activates in late August. All instances prior to the fork will be grandfathered in, and those tx with op_if in Taproot done during the fork will be redeamable once the fork expires.

And so, this is a very sensible way of closing the op_if in Taproot problem.

The problem here is you use theoretical transactions because we can't tell how many monetary users do use this feature, if any at all.

We do know that so far nobody has come out and said that they do use op_if in Taproot for monetary use.

We do know that 99% of Taproot outputs are spam dust UTXOs. And of the remaining 1%, we have no idea how many of them make use of op_if. Likely nobody. As you yourself just pointed it, it's pretty advanced complicated and experimental stuff.

-- your coins are gone.

Only if you ignore the almost full year of warning, and even so, your coin is only gone for a year.

It also raddically hobbles bitcoin, taking out almost all the smart contracting functionality

Go back to ETH shitcoin if you want spam and smart contracts.Theis idea of smart contracts is a ridiculous attempt to emulate shitcoin ETH.
If you can't get your tools to behave without inviting 99% of uses as spam, you can't play with those tools anymore.

almost all the forward extensibility (e.g. security against quantum computers) because it so radically reduces the system's abilities.

Are you going to tell us with a straight face that bitcoin can't resist quantum computers without a specific feature in Taproot which was only activated 5 years ago? Are you for real?

The scripts they block aren't even usless stuff.  

Yeah, very useful if you are a spammer.

You're annoying as fuck.

If you don't want to read my posts, feel free to click the ignore button on my profile, and you will never be annoyed again.

You should be banned for spamming at this point.

Not a single thread on this forum exists to discuss specifically BIP110. Yet a single thread on that specific subject should be seen as spam?

Can you keep one thread open for your crusade, please?

I'm trying but the censorship bureau keeps locking my threads and removing all the posts in agreement with me. And no reason has been provided for this repeated censorship. So I can't even attempt to modify my behavior to suite this forum rules since I'm not told which rule[(s) I'm breaking, if any.

Why do you feel the need to keep re-creating self moderated threads?

This specific thread with this specific subject is the only thread I have posted with self moderation. And I do so only to prevent personal attacks, which appear to be a popular thing on this forum.

Luckily, the threat of self moderation has been enough so far, and I have not needed to delete any posts so far.

If you dislike self moderated threads, perhaps you should also complain on the achow thread pinned in this section, which also deleted almost half of all messages posted there.

110 is going to ironically enrich everyone you and your psycho censorship nutball community hates

This is a personal attack. You have been warned.

So what are your objections to BITP110 ?? And are you able to object without personal attacks and insults?

[philipma1957]

So is BITP110 going to pass?

Will it be done?

If it is done can it freeze my coins? I know this is true.

So now let's see if I yet this.

I could have tainted coins frozen and taken if a government claims they are tainted correct? I know the answer to this is yes.

So you ask me my objection it is simple BITP110 is one more way to freeze and or take my coins.

[PepeLapiu]

So is BITP110 going to pass?
Will it be done?

Core/spam supporters keep saying there is no support for it and it won't pass. I disagree. Let's find out in early September.
Core/spam supporters will also try to tell you if we don't correct bugs in software that were brought in only 6 years ago is somehow going to kill bitcoin.

If it is done can it freeze my coins? I know this is true.

The answer is if you use complicated scripts with op_if in Taproot, than your funds could be frozen for a year until the fork expires. But in the last 6 months that BIP110 has been debated, nobody, absolutely nobody has come out and said they are using op_if in Taproot in some risking complicated script with more than 7 leaves dept.

And if you are doing this, you are actually doing it wrong because you are deliberately revealing a bunch of data on chain, which completely defies the privacy purpose of Taproot.

I could have tainted coins frozen and taken if a government claims they are tainted correct? I know the answer to this is yes.

The answer is yes only of you keep your coin on custodial wallets like Coinbase or Kraken. Government doesn't have the ability to seize your coin out of your Electrum or Sparrow self-custodial wallet.

So you ask me my objection it is simple BITP110 is one more way to freeze and or take my coins.

What BIP110 does is remove some of the ways to spam on bitcoin. But there is a large profitable industry of spam and scans that has been allowed to build on top of bitcoin. This forum is in fact largely controlled by these funds and companies. So they will do what they can to pump fear and loathing into the idea that we can't stop spam, and so we shouldn't try to stop spam, or else all kinds of horrible things will happen.

Almost 10 years ago we did an upgrade called Segwit. And 5 years ago, we did an other upgrade called Taproot. Both of these upgrades were supposed to improve and scale bitcoin. But 99% of Taproot outputs are dust spam UTXOs.

I believe that Segwit and Taproot would be good upgrades. But only if we fix the bugs and exploits in those upgrades. Something that core has refused to do for the last 5 years.

Not oy did they refuse to fix the bugs and exploits in Taproot, but they also decided to blow up a perfectly working spam filter last year. It's been running for 11 years without any problems. But core suddenly decided that filters against spam are censorship.

This caused controversy. So much so that core had previously enjoyed a monopoly on node software. But since last year, almost 25% of the nodesswitchesd from core to Knots. And an other node implementation is coming from Jimmy Song and Sampson Mow. So core will lose even more network share when they get online. All because core has been increasingly facilitating spam.

But if you don't run a node, and don't intend to, none of this really concerns you.