Your objection to BIP110 ??

[PepeLapiu]

I've explained several times that bip110 confiscates coins in the presence of presigned transactions

That is false. Any coin you have commited to op_if in Taproot before BIP110 activates will be grandfathered in.
Any coin you somehow decide to commit into op_if in Taproot during the BIP110 year will become temporarily unspendable until BIP110 sunsets. But only if the redeem side of it occurs before BIP110 sunsets.

In order for your coin to be permanently lost, you would have to throw away your private keys. But that is true for EVERY SINGLE SAT ON CHAIN, genius.

you keep deleting my messages.

I deleted one of your messages, only one. And I made it clear why I deleted it. The rule is "stay polite and respectful" and you were unable to follow that one simple rule.

[Curious T]

When I become BTC CEO, I'll completely cancel both Taproot and Segwit. Back to page 1. And only reintroduce parts of Segwit and Taproot that don't introduce more spam.

WHEN, not IF?
This may be nothing, but this statement has me wondering if this is the endgame of all these.
Please let me know when you will be the BTC CEO so I can buy your stock on Polymarker.

Be polite, be respectful, and your posts in this tread will never be deleted or ignored by me. But politeness and respect are not your strong suits.

I have taken my time to read the threads you posted and the ones mentioned in your OP because I want, and I also read gmaxwell's reply to your post because I really want to understand the POV of both parties, and so far, from what I've seen, you are the disrespectful one. You've directly and indirectly called him names like retard, nazi, and even said he supports Pedophiles. I don't know the history, but none of these things screams respectful. Don't you think it's hypocritical to ask for something you're not ready to give?

[ertil]

WHEN, not IF?

The CEO of a LukeCoin, supported by 1% or less hashrate. Where you will have to ask Luke for permission, to use any scripts, which would be more complex, than what Knots users do.

For some reason, Knots users think, that soft-forks are "mandatory", only because they said so in the code. If that would be true, then anyone could release a new version, which would for example require sending coins to the developer, who created it. That could be also a soft-fork, applied on the coinbase transaction. And guess what: it splitted the chain between BCH and eCash, because old BCH nodes simply didn't follow these new rules.

[PepeLapiu]

For security some people have made transactions which are timelocked for the future, so that e.g. kidnappers can't force them to make payments or so that the transactions for inheritance will only be valid in the future.  After making the transaction they can delete their private keys so that they can't be forced to make any more alternatives, or they can simply lose them -- an eventuality that the presigned transaction was created to pay for.    

Are you serious, Greg?
You are telling us that in order for BIP110 to confiscate your coin, you have to delete your private keys?

Guess what buddy, that has applied to EVERY SINGLE SAT IN THE SYSTEM SINCE THE VERY FIRST BLOCK.

There is a saying in the space:

Not your keys, not your coin.

Ever heard of it, Greg?

Yes, if you delete your keys, you run a really good chance of losing your coin. But that is absolutely true for every single sat in the system.

I find it ridiculous and absurd that you would go to that length to keep alive the idea of BIP110 confiscation FUD. Shame on you.
Do you really need to go to those lengths of deception and absurdity to keep spam going?

[ertil]

There are also things like 2P-ECDSA, where two (or more) people can make a multisig, which would look like a single key on-chain. Then, the transaction can be timelocked, and you can be just one of the participants. How would you change it then?

In general, BIP-110 forgets, that multisig is a thing, and you can have for example 2-of-2 multisig, where one party supports BIP-110, and another one does not. Then, technically, you have the private key, but practically, you cannot change the conditions under which your coin could be moved. And if that timelock expires after BIP-110 activation, then guess what: your coins are burned.

Also, if some Script uses OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, then it may be physically impossible to make a second version of the transaction, without a timelock, if it is checked in the Script, and not in the transaction nLockTime field. It is then tied to a specific coin, and knowing the private key won't allow you to move these coins faster.

[PepeLapiu]

In general, BIP-110 forgets, that multisig is a thing, and you can have for example 2-of-2 multisig, where one party supports BIP-110, and another one does not. Then, technically, you have the private key, but practically, you cannot change the conditions under which your coin could be moved. And if that timelock expires after BIP-110 activation, then guess what: your coins are burned.

Stop lying. The coin only becomes TEMPORARILY unspendable if you do the commit after BIP110 activates, and if you do the redeem before BIP110 expires a year later. And the coin is only unspendable for the duration of the fork. Once the fork expires, your coin is once again spendable.

So if you are an advanced user with Nunchuk, and simultaniously living in a cave, and you have not heard of the controversy, and fork, and you are using a wallet that did not update to the new rules, and you do the commit after BIP110 activation, and you do the redeem before BIP110 expires, than you coin only becomes temporarily unspendable.

Such user very likely does not exist. And even if such user does exist, his coin is only temporarily unspendable. Consider it a nice warning before we make BIP110 rules permanent.

[ertil]

The coin only becomes TEMPORARILY unspendable

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

If some changes are good, then why are they temporary? And if they are bad, then they should be simply rejected. Which means, that if someone don't want to support BIP-110, then that person will stay with the old client. And then, every BIP-110 supporter will fork to its own coin, because it will start rejecting non-signalling blocks. Mandatory signalling just means "let's fork at this point", unless you have hashrate majority on your side.

And then, if Knots will fork to its own chain, for example because of having 1% hashrate support, producing one block per day, while all other miners simply won't signal for BIP-110, then why these new rules will ever be lifted? When the chain will split to people who want BIP-110, and for the rest, who will stay with the old version, then why BIP-110 chain will ever lift these restrictions in the future? By supporting BIP-110, people will simply declare "all of my coins are safe", and later, when BIP-110 community will be closer to the point of lifting these restrictions, then it will turn out, that if there is someone, who lost access to these coins, then that person already stayed with the old rules, and is simply not there.

The only people, who will want to lift BIP-110 restrictions, would be the ones, who may want to sell LukeCoins for BTCs after rule expiration. But then, the price between these two coins may be much worse, than it was, and it may be simply not worth it, to get 0.01 BTC per LukeCoin, or 100k sats per LukeCoin, or even less than that.

Consider it a nice warning before we make BIP110 rules permanent.

They will be permanent, because after the chain will split into BTC and BIP-110, then many people will discover, that it is still possible to put spam on BIP-110 chain in many ways. Which means, that instead of lifting these restrictions, new ones will appear. Because there will never be a point, where BIP-110 enthusiasts will say "there is no more spam, we filtered everything". Also because if one BIP-110 coin will be worth only a bunch of satoshis from BTC chain, then spamming on BIP-110 chain will be just cheaper, than it is on BTC, so more spammy transactions could appear, because of people, treating BIP-110 chain like a testnet, to see, how far Knots will push the filters. It will be just a warnet chain, to test extreme cases, where a chain is heavily censored, and where new filters are constantly deployed, to reject more and more transactions.

[PepeLapiu]

If some changes are good, then why are they temporary?

Two reasons why BIP110 is temporary:

1- Because we can't ever be sure if it breaks anything. Look at Taproot, it was a disaster. Over 85% of Taproot use is done by spammers with dust outputs. If Taproot had been a temporary upgrade, we could have fixed the bugs and exploits out of it before making it permanent.

2- Because we can't just rip the bandaid. We think no monetary users are making use of op_if in Taproot. But we can't be 100% certain. So a gradual removal of op_if in Taproot is the best approach. First we have a year long debate over BIP110, than we have a temporary fork for a year. That gives two years for users and wallets to put their ducks in a row before we make BIP110 permanent.

Personally, I'm no fan of Taproot and it's bullshit "speedy trial". I think a large upgrade like Taproot should be temporary first. With maybe 5 years long.

Even as it was activated, exploits and bugs in Taproot could have been fixed. But the core/Epstein/Block stream asshole devs refused to fix anything.

And if they are bad, then they should be simply rejected.

Yes, BIP110 is really bad....if you are a spammer or a coretard.

Which means, that if someone don't want to support BIP-110, then that person will stay with the old client.

This is not a hard fork, it's a soft fork. Their will not be two different coins. If you wish to see two different coins, if you want to stick with the spam coin, you always have the option to run the reactive fork client which will reject any BIP110 compliant block. That would cause a hard fork. But the reactive fork client has been out for over a month and nobody's running it now.

Look man, I know you want your precious dickbutt.jpegs on bitcoin. I know you don't care about all that "monetary" stuff. You are a shitcoiner. You probably dabble in dogeshitcoin. But bitcoin is not a dickbutt repository. Core fucked up. They though they controlled bitcoin, they though they could manipulate the network for the benefit of the shitcoin/Epstein/Blockstream class. But bitcoiners will hand them their asses and show them who runs bitcoin, who protects bitcoin. You can move to ETH. But don't waste your time with BSV. They tried to blow up their op_return and we are not going to allow bitcoin to go down that route.

They will be permanent, because after the chain will split into BTC and BIP-110, then many people will discover, that it is still possible to put spam on BIP-110 chain in many ways.

Of course spam will still exist. BIP110 doesn't stop all forms of spam. Spammers who can no longer spam with op_if will have a choice to find a new way to spam bitcoin, or move back to the shitcoins they came from.

Basically, BIP110 is only the start, the first battle. After BIP110, bitcoin will have been affirmed at money, a monetary network, not a dickbutt.jpeg repository.

More anti-spam measures will be inplemented after BIP110.
And if core wants to stay relevent, they will have to clean up their act and stop catering to spam and shitcoins. But I don't think that's likely to happen. In 5-10 years, core will be a bad memory.

Which means, that instead of lifting these restrictions, new ones will appear.

You better believe it. If spam persists, so will bitcoiners. I'm already working on my own BIP.

My BIP will start as two filters. First filter will limit the Segwit data to 0.2kb per input. So if you want to shove a 5kb dickbutt in Segwit, you will have to consolidate 25 UTXOs. Or you might have to create 25 UTXOs. Which will make shoving spam in Segwit more expensive than other spam methods.

My second filter will either raise the dust limit to 10,000 bytes, with the exception of a an output that re-uses an input. This will make fake pubkeys too expensive. And incentivise spammers to make their fake pubkeys spendable.
The other option for this filter is to require that all outputs of <20,000 sats be signed with two messages. This would also force spammers to make their fake pubkeys soendable, and eventually spend them.

The filters will give the chance for wallets and users to put their ducks in a row before we eventually bake the filters into consensus.

And you'll be crawling back to the shitcoin you came from, with your tail between your legs.

[DaveF]

And then, if Knots will fork to its own chain

It's not an "if" it's a when.
The code in lukecoin forces it.
It will ignore blocks it does not like while almost all other clients will accept blocks that meet 110 or don't
Period.
So a fork. You can call it a chain split but it's all the same in the end.

Side note even according to luke the knots nodes are down to ~ 20% to 22% of the network.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Guess someone forgot to pay their hosting bill for all the fake nodes / or the 1 node with 1000s and 1000s of tor addresses went offline.


-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

And then, if Knots will fork to its own chain

It's not an "if" it's a when.
The code in lukecoin forces it.
It will ignore blocks it does not like while almost all other clients will accept blocks that meet 110 or don't
Period.
So a fork. You can call it a chain split but it's all the same in the end.

Yup, fork, chain split, same thing.
You do realize that everything you just wrote describes BIP148 to a T, right? Yet Segwit is a thing. Segwit was rejected by the majority of miners and pools. Why on earth would miners and pools be willing to give out 50% fee discounts at a time when fees were at an all time high, and everyone expected fees to keep climbing?
Miners and pools were not interested in Segwit, yet a small minority of nodes forces them to adopt Segwit with user activated BIP148.

They had previously tried a miner activation which wasn't going anywhere. But the nodes forced miners to adopt Segwit. You are welcome.

We are going to do it again with BIP110. Fuck the spammers, fuck core.

Side note even according to luke the knots nodes are down to ~ 20% to 22% of the network.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Guess someone forgot to pay their hosting bill for all the fake nodes / or the 1 node with 1000s and 1000s of tor addresses went offline.

I was not aware of that. But we did get a sudden spike of about 1000 Knots nodes about a month ago. BitcoinMechanic was the first one to point out these nodes might be fake, a sybil attack. He said so on Twitter. I can dig up his Tweet if you want.

BTW, I looked it up. I can't detect any sudden drop in node count. It's currently at 22.93% for Knots and 9% for BIP110. So I have no idea what sort of sudden drop you are talking about.
 

[DaveF]

And then, if Knots will fork to its own chain

It's not an "if" it's a when.
The code in lukecoin forces it.
It will ignore blocks it does not like while almost all other clients will accept blocks that meet 110 or don't
Period.
So a fork. You can call it a chain split but it's all the same in the end.

Yup, fork, chain split, same thing.
You do realize that everything you just wrote describes BIP148 to a T, right? Yet Segwit is a thing. Segwit was rejected by the majority of miners and pools. Why on earth would miners and pools be willing to give out 50% fee discounts at a time when fees were at an all time high, and everyone expected fees to keep climbing?
Miners and pools were not interested in Segwit, yet a small minority of nodes forces them to adopt Segwit with user activated BIP148.

They had previously tried a miner activation which wasn't going anywhere. But the nodes forced miners to adopt Segwit. You are welcome.

We are going to do it again with BIP110. Fuck the spammers, fuck core.

Side note even according to luke the knots nodes are down to ~ 20% to 22% of the network.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Guess someone forgot to pay their hosting bill for all the fake nodes / or the 1 node with 1000s and 1000s of tor addresses went offline.

I was not aware of that. But we did get a sudden spike of about 1000 Knots nodes about a month ago. BitcoinMechanic was the first one to point out these nodes might be fake, a sybil attack. He said so on Twitter. I can dig up his Tweet if you want.

BTW, I looked it up. I can't detect any sudden drop in node count. It's currently at 22.93% for Knots and 9% for BIP110. So I have no idea what sort of sudden drop you are talking about.

About 2 months ago there were over 23,000 lukecoin nodes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260305102932/https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Today (or at least the last time that chart was updated) there are a little over 18,000 
So they lost 5000 nodes +/- some or a little over 20% of those nodes. Using round numbers.

During the same time core went from 75,000 to 68,000 once again round numbers. Or a little under 10% of the nodes dropped off.

So although core lost more nodes it's a much smaller percentage of loss.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Today (or at least the last time that chart was updated) there are a little over 18,000  
So they lost 5000 nodes +/- some or a little over 20% of those nodes. Using round numbers.

During the same time core went from 75,000 to 68,000 once again round numbers. Or a little under 10% of the nodes dropped off.

So although core lost more nodes it's a much smaller percentage of loss.

-Dave

Your claim that both core and Knots experienced a drastic drop doesn't match the statistics I found on two separate sites.
Have a look here, and scroll down to the Bitcoin nodes (historical) chart:

https://coin.dance/nodes/all

The drop in nodes you speak of is not visible.

Click on YTD in to top left corner to get a more granular view. No such sudden drop is visible.

Bitnodes was putting Knots at 21% 2 months ago.
It's now at 22.86%.

https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=knots

[DaveF]

Today (or at least the last time that chart was updated) there are a little over 18,000  
So they lost 5000 nodes +/- some or a little over 20% of those nodes. Using round numbers.

During the same time core went from 75,000 to 68,000 once again round numbers. Or a little under 10% of the nodes dropped off.

So although core lost more nodes it's a much smaller percentage of loss.

-Dave

Your claim that both core and Knots experienced a drastic drop doesn't match the statistics I found on two separate sites.
Have a look here, and scroll down to the Bitcoin nodes (historical) chart:

https://coin.dance/nodes/all

The drop in nodes you speak of is not visible.

Click on YTD in to top left corner to get a more granular view. No such sudden drop is visible.

Bitnodes was putting Knots at 21% 2 months ago.
It's now at 22.86%.

https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=knots

As of the time of this post both of the links that you posted are showing ~ 24k nodes in total.
Since they are both showing similar numbers but other sites like lukes show more I am guessing that they bitnodes filters like coin.dance.

Correction for Duplicate Nodes

Coin Dance filters duplicate nodes by address, so individuals running more than one node at a given address are only counted once.

This helps give (although does not guarantee) a better picture of node decentralization/ownership, as it is understood that a single party running multiple nodes at a centralized location doesn't provide any additional value to the network.

In addition to this, Coin Dance also ignores non-listening nodes which have a maximum of only eight outbound peers.

Both numbers are technically accurate.
The question comes back to why was someone (or a group of someones) running all those non-listening nodes.
When, unless you are looking for them, you can't see them.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

As of the time of this post both of the links that you posted are showing ~ 24k nodes in total.
Since they are both showing similar numbers but other sites like lukes show more I am guessing that they bitnodes filters like coin.dance.

Counting nodes, both listening and non-listening, is a tricky and innacurate thing to do. Even Luke tells me his numbers are not accurate, and other numbers I can find are also likely not accurate. It's sort of a game of guessing and extrapolation.

This explains why the numbers vary from site to site. I've been trying to figure out a single site which would be the most accurate. But it appears counting nodes is like calling the weather for next month. This week your count wins, next week, my count wins.

Both numbers are technically accurate.
The question comes back to why was someone (or a group of someones) running all those non-listening nodes.

I can't verify your claim that someone was running a bunch of non-listening nodes, therefore I can't form an option on that.

[ertil]

Counting nodes, both listening and non-listening, is a tricky and innacurate thing to do.

Which is exactly why we have Proof of Work in the first place. If you believe, that counting nodes can be used instead, to measure support for some BIPs, to activate different rules, and do things like that, then it is strictly incompatible with the whitepaper, which explains, why you need Proof of Work to decide about consensus changes.

Of course, users can always run any software they want. But if you believe, that by having 1% hashrate support, it is enough to deploy something in practice, then it is more likely than not, that you will land on an altcoin. Because then, the rest of the community will produce blocks as usual, without BIP-110 signalling. And then, if your client will reject the heaviest chain, then it is your problem, if you accept the risk of 51% attacks.

By the way: it would be funny, if BIP-110 chain will be attacked in the same way, as Luke attacked other altcoins in the past. People could then say, that it is "A Taste of Your Own Medicine". And it is exactly the reason, why many altcoins, who didn't reach hashrate majority for their ideas and improvements, simply switched Proof of Work algorithm from double SHA-256 to something else. It was the only way to avoid 51% attacks from stronger chains. And if Knots will unconditionally activate BIP-110 through "mandatory signalling", without getting hashrate majority, then it will simply face the same problems.

Segwit was rejected by the majority of miners and pools.

And then, they started supporting it, when it turned out, that if they produce blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they will land on an altcoin called BCH instead (or some other altcoins, which are now dead).

[ABCbits]

Both numbers are technically accurate.
The question comes back to why was someone (or a group of someones) running all those non-listening nodes.

I can't verify your claim that someone was running a bunch of non-listening nodes, therefore I can't form an option on that.

It makes more sense if you consider some things, such as
1. They don't realize other node can't connect to them first, because they don't open the port or their ISP use CGNAT.
2. Their goal isn't contribute to Bitcoin network, but for self-hosting or privacy purpose. Some member here even run their own Bitcoin node and Electrum server, then connect their Electrum wallet only to their Electrum server.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I have no objections at all. I love free money!  

Absolutely no objections, jokes asides. If you think that Bitcoin is currently under a serious vulnerability that must be fixed with this particular soft fork, go for it and put your money where your mouth is. This is precisely how problems are fixed when people disagree and the network is decentralized. You do not have to convince anyone from this board to join you.

You will regret it, and end up poor. But at least you will live spam free! (Maybe, if the soft fork really prevented spam.)

[PepeLapiu]

I have no objections at all. I love free money!  

Absolutely no objections, jokes asides. If you think that Bitcoin is currently under a serious vulnerability that must be fixed with this particular soft fork, go for it and put your money where your mouth is. This is precisely how problems are fixed when people disagree and the network is decentralized.

Thank you.

You do not have to convince anyone from this board to join you.

Actually, I do.

If BIP110 fails, at some point, there will be a spam attack filled with obcenities and illegal and illicit stuff. And it will be followed by a price drop, some people who somehow luckily placed a bet that the price would drop, and benefit tremendously from it. And there will be calls to control bitcoin.

"Won't someone think of the children!"

And when that happens, you will remember that nutty guy who kept going on about it. You might actually wake up and realize how core is completely corrupt, and you might get onboard when BIP110 is rolled out.

You will regret it, and end up poor.

Still don't know the difference between a soft and hard fork, I see?

But at least you will live spam free! (Maybe, if the soft fork really prevented spam.)

Strawman arguement.
I keep cats in the barn knowing full well the mice will never be completely eradicated.
I run a bug zapper in my backyard knowing full well the moskito problem will never go away.
And I run BIP110 knowing full well the spam problem will always be a perpetual fight to fight.

But cats in barns keep the mouse problem low, bug zappers make dinner in the backyard more tolerable, and anti-spam ideas result in less spam.

All the while, core has been killing barn cats, turning off bug zappers, blowing up spam filters, and inviting in spammers.

If you think that's a winning recipe, go for it.

Here is what I predict. At some point, the coretards will tell you "The fees are the only filter we need" and you will remember that ordinals pay half as much in fees as monetary users do. And you will realize something doesn't fit here. The math ain't mathing. The logic ain't logiking. And you will wake up and join us.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Still don't know the difference between a soft and hard fork, I see.

Yes, hundred percent. Soft fork author does not know the difference between soft and hard fork. Now jokes asides, you don't really believe that majority of hashrate will mine BIP110, right?

Sorry, but your analogy is just terrible. Keeping cats in the barn does reduce the mice. Bug zapper does reduce the mosquitos near you. But it is completely futile to try and reduce spam when information is so easy to spread, and when it is already cheaper with alternatives, like Segwit. And on top of that, you're arrogant enough to believe that playing with matches on the world's most important recent invention holds absolutely no risk.

If you genuinely think that Bitcoin, a system where human lives depend on as we speak, should be put at a soft fork risk because you're not comfortable with what other people voluntary choose to do on-chain, you're a child to put it politely.

[PepeLapiu]

Still don't know the difference between a soft and hard fork, I see.

Yes, hundred percent. Soft fork author does not know the difference between soft and hard fork.

If he knows the difference between a soft and a hard fork, why is he acting as if there will be two different coins with two different prices? Is he stupid? Or deliberately misleading people?

Now jokes asides, you don't really believe that majority of hashrate will mine BIP110, right?

I suggest you look into the story of BIP148.

They tried to activate Segwit with a miner activated soft fork. It was going nowhere. Why on earth would miners support a fork that would cut their fees by half at a time when fees were at an all time high, and expected to keep climbing?
Why would the majority of miners running bitmain ASIC willingly cut their ASIC performance by 20% by killing ASIC boost?

The miner activation was going nowhere. Until BIP148 proposed a user (nodes) activation. Miners protested, ASIC builders protested, even exchanges, wallets, and some core devs protested. They all swore they won't go along with it.

At the last minute, with only 5% of the nodes running BIP148, they all capitulated. Now we have Segwit. You are welcome.

Sorry, but your analogy is just terrible.

I agree. My analogy is horrible because mice and moskitos are stupid, spammers are not so stupid.

A smart mouse would stay away from a barn with cats. A smart moskito would prefer the neighbor's backyard with no bug zapper.

A spammer who sees bitcoin being hostile to spam and willing to rug them as best they can, is more likely to go elsewhere.

If you genuinely think that Bitcoin, a system where human lives depend on as we speak, should be put at a soft fork risk because you're not comfortable with what other people voluntary choose to do on-chain, you're a child to put it politely.

You are the childish one here. When Satoshi was confronted with the idea of Lady Gaga videos filling up the block chain, he did not ask if the senders of Lady Gags videos were volunteering or not. He did not ask if that would constitute some absurd form of censorship. He did not say "You just don't like Lady Gaga's talent and art form." He just said the following:

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

Would you say Satoshi was "a child to put it politely"?