Your objection to BIP110 ??

[ertil]

why is he acting as if there will be two different coins with two different prices?

Because the source code of Knots is programmed to unconditionally activate new rules, even if the hashrate majority wouldn't follow them. Which means, that if there will be much less than 50% support for BIP-110, then the chain will fork. Because then, during "mandatory signalling", Knots nodes won't accept new blocks from the strongest chain.

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?

Because when they realized, that by making blocks bigger than 1 MB, they will land on an altcoin like BCH, or other similar altcoins, then they started supporting it.

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

It is much more likely, that spammers will adapt faster, than developers would be able to update their filters. And blocking existing methods of spamming will only reduce the supply of some meme tokens, which will make them more expensive, than they currently are.

And then, when spammy transactions will be more and more similar to regular payments, then new filters will start affecting real users, for example if new data pushes will be stored in private keys, signatures, and other similar places.

There are other things we can do if necessary.

As long as it won't hurt regular users, it can make sense to do more things. But proposals like BIP-110 will not only affect the spammers, but will also make life harder for the regular users, who will need to push more on-chain data, to do the same things, only because BIP-110 enthusiasts don't understand, that blocking some scripts will force people to split coins into N more simple scripts, which will take more space, and will be harder to process.

Edit: Also, even articles from sites like https://bip110.org/ agree, that there could be two coins: https://privkey.substack.com/p/bitcoin-has-a-squatter-problem-bip?open=false#%C2%A7wont-this-cause-a-chain-split

If BIP 110 lacks economic support, its nodes stall. They sit at the last valid block, waiting for a signaling block that doesn’t come. The main chain continues as if nothing happened. No split, no disruption, no damage. BIP 110 just quietly fails.

Which means, that there will be two coins (one moving forward, and one stopped, waiting for signalling blocks), unless BIP-110 enthusiasts will decide to change their code, and follow the strongest chain instead. But if they really think, that something can be "mandatory", only because they said so in the code, then it will result in two separate chains, which means two coins, probably with two different prices, because different miners will push these chains forward.

The current BIP-110 support is still at 0%. If it stays there, then BIP-110 enthusiasts will have two options: to change their code, or to produce new blocks by themselves. In the first case, it will follow the same path as BCH, and other altcoins, which just changed their difficulty calculation, to push their chain forward. In the second case, BIP-110 simply fails, exactly as quoted above, and all Knots nodes go back to BTC, to use a chain, that can confirm new transactions.

Also note, that for BIP-110 to fail, no "reactive client" is needed. It is sufficient, if more than 50% of miners will just do nothing, and never implement the code for BIP-110 support. And also, all old pre-BIP-110 versions will do that by default. Even old Knots nodes will do that by default.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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?

News flash: if majority of hashrate does not follow the BIP110 soft fork, then BIP110 nodes will reject the strongest chain, and just cope with a chain with less work but stricter rules.

That might explain why you're so arrogant and think this whole moronic proposal has any point or chance to work. You need approval from the people you've been calling names, and which approval will only accomplish to reduce their income from their point of view. Not the best bet, if you ask me, but I'll gladly sell you all my BIP110-coins with a discount, just for you!

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

Yes, if Satoshi was still around after 17 years, and was seriously proposing a change that puts real people's lives at stake because he had a problem with what individuals decide to do voluntarily, then I'd call him a child and not support his soft fork.

[ertil]

Not the best bet, if you ask me, but I'll gladly sell you all my BIP110-coins with a discount, just for you!

In theory, you could try to make a transaction. In practice, it can fly as unconfirmed in all BIP-110 nodes, if nobody will mine it.

Also, because all transactions are spammy, then someone may decide to do the same thing, that Luke did to CoiledCoin in the past, and simply mine empty blocks, only with the coinbase transaction, and nothing else. Then, there will be no spam on this chain (and also no payments, but who cares; BIP-110 enthusiasts don't care, if their filters will be too strong, and block any use cases anyway).

So, a chain, where some miner will produce only coinbase transactions with "LukeCoin now closed. Have a nice day." is BIP-110 compatible (and also Eligius-compatible, because coinbase messages are not considered as spam, by their definition). But it is much more likely, that the bigger filter, which is just the Proof of Work filter, will just entirely block their chain.

Which means, that of course, Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. And you can run any code you want. But still, at the end of the day, you need some miners to push your chain forward. Otherwise, you have to become a miner, if there is not enough people, willing to do that job on your chain, just to confirm your own transactions. Or change the code, to artificially push it forward, for example by lowering the difficulty, or changing the Proof of Work algorithm.

[PepeLapiu]

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?

News flash: if majority of hashrate does not follow the BIP110 soft fork, then BIP110 nodes will reject the strongest chain, and just cope with a chain with less work but stricter rules.

This still doesn't amount to a hard fork or two separate coins.

That might explain why you're so arrogant and think this whole moronic proposal has any point or chance to work.

Get your popcorn. September will be a fun time!

You need approval from the people you've been calling names

Who would that be? The big pools? You think the big pools decide on the rules of bitcoin? If so, we wouldn't have Segwit right now, and the big pools would only be too happy to ignore the halvening. Think about it for a minute.
The big pools would only be too happy to turn on the money printer and ignore every halvening. So why aren't they doing that?
Answer: Because those who enforce the rules, the 90,000 nodes, would reject the miners's blocks.

If we needed the big pools' permission to do anything, Segwit would not exist. Why would big pools willingly sign up for cutting miner fees in half, when miner fees were at an all time high and everyone was expecting miner fees to keep going up?

Wait before you call me stupid or ignorant, and answer the question: Why did the big pools sign up to give away 50% miner fee discount and reduce their ASICs Performance by 20%?

and which approval will only accomplish to reduce their income from their point of view.

Let me tell you about the story of Segwit.
Bitmain was the dominant ASIC maker on the market. It's likely no other ASIC maker could compete because Bitmain was secretly running something called "ASIC boost" which gave Bitmain ASICs a 20% boast over other ASICs.

The only miners who supported Segwit were mostly the miners not running Bitmain ASICs. And those were a small minority.

And than there is the 50% fee discount. Any miner endorcing Segwit was signing up to get their miner fees cut in half. And that was as a time when miner fees were at an all time high and everyone was projecting that miner fees would only go up in the future.

With Segwit, most miners would lose 20% of their ASIC performance, lose 50% of miner fees, and see block size effectively quadruple from 1mb to 4mb. What sort if stoopit miner would sign up for that?

So at first we tried to do a miner activated Segwit soft fork.  And that was not going anywhere, as you surely can understand. Even Bitmain, the dominant ASIC maker at the time, was chiming in and trying to discourage efforts to activate Segwit.

That's when BIP148 showed up. We decided to activate Segwit with a user activated soft fork.
Less than 5% of the nodes were running the BIP148 client. Miners had no desire to see Segwit activated.

Yet, we now have Segwit. Thanks to an intolerant minority of nodes who told miners "STFU and upgrade tobSegwit." and the miners obliged.

Now we have Segwit. You're welcome.

Not the best bet, if you ask me, but I'll gladly sell you all my BIP110-coins with a discount, just for you!

That's what they said about BIP148 too: "I'll gladly sell all my Segwit coins at a discount."
And look where that ended up.

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

Yes, if Satoshi was still around after 17 years, and was seriously proposing a change that puts real people's lives at stake because he had a problem with what individuals decide to do voluntarily, then I'd call him a child and not support his soft fork.

Really! So Satoshi was clearly against the idea of Lady Gaga videos on chain. But you think he would feel completely differently about your stoopit dickbutt.jpeg? Seriously?
I mean, seriously, man!

[DaveF]

That's when BIP148 showed up. We decided to activate Segwit with a user activated soft fork.
Less than 5% of the nodes were running the BIP148 client. Miners had no desire to see Segwit activated.

Yet, we now have Segwit. Thanks to an intolerant minority of nodes who told miners "STFU and upgrade tobSegwit." and the miners obliged.

Now we have Segwit. You're welcome.

Not 100% accurate. ~30% of the miners / pools DID support Segwit.
And were signaling it for months and months.
How many blocks have signaled for 110 support?

Opinion: Things have changed in the 9 years since then. Good or bad the BTC world is different. Just because X happened back in 2017 saying the same thing will happen in 2026 is just guessing.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Not 100% accurate. ~30% of the miners / pools DID support Segwit.
And were signaling it for months and months.

You are correct in saying Segwit had more miner support. Those who supported BIP148 were mostly miners at a disadvantage without ASIC boost.

BIP110 has far less miner support and institutional support than BIP148 did.
But BIP110 already has more than 2x more user support than BIP148 did. And we still have time to grow before activation in September.

What's important to remember is that a few miners and pools were publicly screaming they will never support BIP148 and Segwit. They had very strong incentives to reject Segwit. A 20% drop in ASIC performance and less miner fees to them at a time when miner fees were substantial.

But at the last minute, they all STFU and went along with the 5% of nodes who demanded miner compliance.

Opinion: Things have changed in the 9 years since then. Good or bad the BTC world is different. Just because X happened back in 2017 saying the same thing will happen in 2026 is just guessing.

You are correct, things have changed. The space has been populated with shitcoiners. You can now go to a bitcoin conference and listen to wizards and ordinal spammers make their sales pitch for their scams.

But in spite of far fewer miners signalling for BIP110 than were signalling for BIP148, this upgrade is far less disruptive to miners. They lose fees from large up_returns which is really negligible, and fees from op_if in Taproot spam, which is a bit more substantial, but still negligible.

Miners and pools had way more incentive to resist BIP148 than they do to resist BIP110. And still, Segwit is a thing today!

Miners don't run the show. Coretards don't run the show. Nodes do.

Miners are employees of the network. Implementation devs should be working for the nodes, to maintain the software for the nodes. Unfortunately, the devs have been getting paid by shitcoiners and spammers. And so they have become the employed of the shitcoiners and spammers.

The nodes run the show. The nodes enforce the rules of the network. In spite of dev centralization, and pool centralization, bitcoin remains decentralized because the big bosses on the block, all 90,000 of them, run the show.

Miners can be fires, as we've been doing for the last year, gradually firing coretards. Or at least demoting them to a lesser position. But nodes can't be fired. Because that's who the network belongs to.

Bitcoin belongs to bitcoiners. Not large corporate pools, and certainly not to Epstein/brink/blockstream paid devs.

[ertil]

This still doesn't amount to a hard fork or two separate coins.

If you have a soft-fork, then the chain can also split into two separate coins. When soft-fork is supported by the hashrate majority, and then activated, then all nodes land on the same chain. But when soft-fork is supported by some minority (for example 1% or less hashrate), then you will always have a split, as long as the soft-fork minority is willing to keep their system running, and produce for example one block per day, until their difficulty will adjust.

You think the big pools decide on the rules of bitcoin?

They don't. But you need some of them to push your chain forward. Otherwise, you will have to mine these blocks by yourself.

The big pools would only be too happy to turn on the money printer and ignore every halvening. So why aren't they doing that?

Because that would be a hard-fork. And for exactly the same reason, miners producing blocks bigger than 1 MB, and rejecting Segwit, landed on some altcoins, which is why Segwit succeeded later.

Answer: Because those who enforce the rules, the 90,000 nodes, would reject the miners's blocks.

And they will wait for new BIP-110 blocks, where there wouldn't be any, or they would be produced one per day, maybe one per week, instead of one per 10 minutes.

Why did the big pools sign up to give away 50% miner fee discount and reduce their ASICs Performance by 20%?

Because when they started producing blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they landed on altcoins. And then, they have a choice: go back to BTC with Segwit, or continue mining BCH, and other altcoins, which were traded at a fraction of BTCs price.

BIP110 has far less miner support and institutional support than BIP148 did.

Which is why BIP-110 chain will probably just halt, when "mandatory signalling" will be enforced by Knots. And the original chain will just move forward.

But BIP110 already has more than 2x more user support than BIP148 did.

How many of them have ASICs ready, to push BIP-110 chain forward? Because someone will have to do that, otherwise it will simply fail.

Miners and pools had way more incentive to resist BIP148 than they do to resist BIP110.

Why? Segwit didn't block any of their existing coins or transactions. BIP-110 may block some of them. And it will create a precedent for other proposals, to restrict it further in the future.

Miners are employees of the network.

Exactly. And guess what will happen, if you fire 99% employees, and leave 1%, or less than that. How will that kind of company survive? Managers will pick the job of fired people, and start mining blocks by themselves?

bitcoin remains decentralized because the big bosses on the block, all 90,000 of them, run the show

And now, all of them will have a choice: to pick a coin, where there are miners, pushing the chain forward, or to pick BIP-110 side, and switch from being just users, to also being miners, buy ASICs, and point them at BIP-110 chain. Because someone will have to do that, otherwise it will fail.

[BlackHatCoiner]

This still doesn't amount to a hard fork or two separate coins.

It does not amount to a hard fork, but it does amount to two separate coins, if you don't have hashrate majority. If chain is split, then you have two chains, and thus two coins.

Who would that be? The big pools? You think the big pools decide on the rules of bitcoin?

No, it is the economic majority that decides the rules, and the economic majority absolutely does not care about BIP110.

Wait before you call me stupid or ignorant, and answer the question: Why did the big pools sign up to give away 50% miner fee discount and reduce their ASICs Performance by 20%?

Because pools will mine what the economic majority wants. I do not believe the miners decide the rules, but the majority of hashrate will mine what most money wants.

Yet, we now have Segwit. Thanks to an intolerant minority of nodes who told miners "STFU and upgrade tobSegwit." and the miners obliged.

Segwit wasn't the minority. Segwit was what most developers supported and eventually what most money voted for.

Really! So Satoshi was clearly against the idea of Lady Gaga videos on chain. But you think he would feel completely differently about your stoopit dickbutt.jpeg? Seriously?
I mean, seriously, man!

Yes, seriously. It is not 2009. Bitcoin is not your toy to meddle with. I may had agreed with some minor on-chain limitations with Satoshi in 2009, but it is an entirely different timing to bring a soft fork change today, when people's savings are at stake. Try to behave like an adult, and understand that people's savings and their kids' future is more important than your arrogance and intolerance on spam.

[DaveF]

It does not amount to a hard fork, but it does amount to two separate coins, if you don't have hashrate majority. If chain is split, then you have two chains, and thus two coins.

Hard fork / soft fork / chain split. Does not really matter. There will be 2 chains. One that follows today's rules one that follows 110. Everything else is really just a bit of semantics.

The question is how many miners & pools will follow luke vs how many will follow core?

With what people are reporting from LV and from what most larger miners (not pools miners) are saying they are going to follow core.
The big question is what will the 2 separate coins be worth. Back in 2017 BCH did have a real value vs fiat. Will that follow here?

But BIP110 already has more than 2x more user support than BIP148 did.

How many of them have ASICs ready, to push BIP-110 chain forward? Because someone will have to do that, otherwise it will simply fail.

Probably not a lot because IMO if they did we would be seeing more 110 signaling blocks now.
The question is do they have enough money to rent enough hash to actually keep the chain moving long enough to the difficulty to adjust?

Figure we are at about to 90 day point now before we see the answer.

Also, could this be a replay of 2017 with the fork wars? That was a fun time. I mean some people did loose everything because they were convinced that this one particular fork was the one true BTC and put all their money into it, just to watch it fall to 0. But, those of us with BTC just kept selling the forks to get more BTC.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

Hard fork / soft fork / chain split. Does not really matter. There will be 2 chains. One that follows today's rules one that follows 110. Everything else is really just a bit of semantics.

It is not semantics. There is a very tangible difference between a soft fork and a hard fork. If it is a soft fork, and it gains majority of hashrate, then it can force those rules across the rest of the nodes, even if the old nodes don't agree to upgrade, because the hashrate minority will keep getting reorged by the BIP110 miners.

If it were a hard fork, on the other hand, then it wouldn't matter whether hashrate majority supported it or not; it would be an altcoin regardless.

[DaveF]

Hard fork / soft fork / chain split. Does not really matter. There will be 2 chains. One that follows today's rules one that follows 110. Everything else is really just a bit of semantics.

It is not semantics. There is a very tangible difference between a soft fork and a hard fork. If it is a soft fork, and it gains majority of hashrate, then it can force those rules across the rest of the nodes, even if the old nodes don't agree to upgrade, because the hashrate minority will keep getting reorged by the BIP110 miners.

If it were a hard fork, on the other hand, then it wouldn't matter whether hashrate majority supported it or not; it would be an altcoin regardless.

Yes, with a but. Except in a very few peoples minds 110 is going to fail hard.
In general hard / soft matters. In this case it does not. There is no support for 110 out there. So in *theory* it's dangerous. In reality its no more important or dangerous then BSV.

Which when you think about it BSV is more or less the same as 110. Once person or in this case one developer pushing an agenda that nobody else really cares about.

Back in 2017 there were tons and tons of people / posts on both sides screaming & yelling & posting about which side they were on and which side was better and so on.

Now there is 1 person on the forum that really supports it, there are no other places that have any kind of userbase that have people talking about lukecoin.
Unless I missed it there are no users or businesses that have shown real use and support of BTC over the years that have come out in support of lukecoin.

So, yeah, it's a soft fork, which *could* be dangerous. Unless something changes it's DOA which was why I said what I said. Perhaps could have said it better.

As I pointed out above even months before segwit activation  there was 30% support for segwit. There is no where even close to that support for 110 at the same 3 months or so out.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yes, with a but. Except in a very few peoples minds 110 is going to fail hard.

Absolutely. The people who authored BIP110 and who supported it clearly have no significant monetary involvement with bitcoin, because those who do have the reasoning to understand how insanely stupid idea it is to propose a soft fork on a trillion dollar asset, just because you have basic comprehension issues on information theory and believe that people engaging in voluntary transactions is a moral disaster.

One thing also. Spam is a message that is sent to a recipient when the recipient does not wish to receive it. An email can be spam, if it is a junk advertisement. A Bitcoin transaction that is sent from A to B, when both A and B wish to send and receive it, is just by definition not spam.

[PrivacyG]

Absolutely. The people who authored BIP110 and who supported it clearly have no significant monetary involvement with bitcoin, because those who do have the reasoning to understand how insanely stupid idea it is to propose a soft fork on a trillion dollar asset, just because you have basic comprehension issues on information theory and believe that people engaging in voluntary transactions is a moral disaster.

It seems to me that the BIP-110 support is driven by a gigantic egoism.  All the people I have contradicted on the subject are very selfish with a very strong feeling of self importance and want THEIR Transactions to be cheaper by excluding Transactions other people want to make that they do not only so that they can be ahead.  By definition and default, this is going to fail.  When it does not fail any more and the egoistic kind of people who would support BIP-110 end up being the majority, it means Bitcoin fails and does not fit a need in this World any more.  It means the World is entirely screwed.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It seems to me that the BIP-110 support is driven by a gigantic egoism.

Gigantic arrogance and ignorance about the technology and what can of worms this insane proposal opens for the future. Hand on a plate for governments who want to censor Bitcoin. In fact, I used to believe this whole "anti-spam movement" began innocently by just incompetent Bitcoiners, but it's been a few months now that I strongly believe that pro-Knots is actually a psyop and Luke Jr is a paid actor. No moronic debates like this one can last that long, unless it is funded by some unknown people in the shadows who want "the good of Bitcoin".

[PepeLapiu]

What Satoshi said about fighting spam:

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

What coretards actually understand when they read the above:

It only applies if the spammer didn't pay his miner fee, and if his spam is not consensus valid. And in which case, only fees are allowed as spam filter, and nothing else is acceptable. And you are just censoring because my dickbutt.jpeg is just a transaction you don't like. And my spam can't be stopped because I'm a smart spammer and bircoiners are all dumb fucks.

#information_theory
#bitcoin_is_just_a_database
#muh_dickbutt.jpeg_is_just_transaction_you_don't_like
#what_is_spam_anyways

[BlackHatCoiner]

There were things we could do if necessary. Past tense. When that message was posted, Bitcoin was still in a testing period, and around the same time the network hard forked because of a value overflow bug. "Doing other things if necessary" is a lot less harmful when there's barely a market for bitcoin.

I am absolutely certain he wouldn't say the same today. But, then again, I don't care the slightest, because Bitcoin is not owned by Satoshi.

[PepeLapiu]

There were things we could do if necessary. Past tense.

You wish.

When that message was posted, Bitcoin was still in a testing period, and around the same time the network hard forked because of a value overflow bug. "Doing other things if necessary" is a lot less harmful when there's barely a market for bitcoin.

I would argue "Doing other things if necessary" is even more important now that the fees are no longer effective as a filter mechanism, and now that there is a real market for bitcoin.

I am absolutely certain he wouldn't say the same today. But, then again, I don't care the slightest, because Bitcoin is not owned by Satoshi.

If you think Satoshi would be willing to tolerate your dickbutt.jpeg, you are delusional.

In 2010 when Satoshi said that, the UTXO set was not 40% spam dust. The chain was not 50% spam. Taproot outputs were not 85% spam dust.

There was no need to do "other things if necessary". But now there is. And blowing up an existing filter, is not considered appropriate "other things if necessary".

What core has dome for the last 4-5 years is fill the barn with cheese, drill holes in the barn walks, and invite mice to go in.

So of course, after 5 years, the mouse problem is overwhelming. Now the mice built a home in the barn. They think they belong here.  They think the barn is built for them.

And I look really stupid when I pull out my single cat or my single mouse trap. But that single mouse trap is a signal to the mice that they will no longer be tolerated.

Bitcoin is no longer a home for spammers. Bitcoin will no longer drill holes in the chain to make room for spam by blowing up spam filters. Spammers will no longer be called "users who need to upload data", they will be called what they are: spammers, attackers, scammers, and grifters.
Spam will no longer be refered to as "use cases we have today". And coretards will no longer be allowed to refer to bitcoiners as "extractive users" or "carnivore retards".

[ertil]

the network hard forked because of a value overflow bug

It was a soft-fork. If you re-introduce Value Overflow on top of the latest version, you will land on the same chain.

the fees are no longer effective as a filter mechanism

Then maybe Proof of Work will act as a better filter, by making sure, that too many BIP-110 blocks won't be produced, unless Knots will lower the difficulty.

[PepeLapiu]

the fees are no longer effective as a filter mechanism

Then maybe Proof of Work will act as a better filter, by making sure, that too many BIP-110 blocks won't be produced, unless Knots will lower the difficulty.

If I get in a street fight and the opponent tells me the rules are no hitting the face, I make sure to only hit the face.

If a coretard and spam apologist tells me how to fight spam, I'll make sure to use every method available, except the method he is proposing.

[DaveF]

the fees are no longer effective as a filter mechanism

Then maybe Proof of Work will act as a better filter, by making sure, that too many BIP-110 blocks won't be produced, unless Knots will lower the difficulty.

If I get in a street fight and the opponent tells me the rules are no hitting the face, I make sure to only hit the face.

If a coretard and spam apologist tells me how to fight spam, I'll make sure to use every method available, except the method he is proposing.

In a street fight you bring friends.
Who are your friends? Any miners want to step up and say they support it. There have been 2 that came out against it. F2 and one who I don't remember at the moment. The only nominal for it, is ocean with less then 2% of the hash rate.

Most people use mobile / lite wallets.  Depending on who you ask they account for either a bit over 60% or 70% of daily transactions.
Is there anyone with a public electrum server that has 110 as it's back end?


Any exchanges?
Any gateways?
Anyone?

One thing also. Spam is a message that is sent to a recipient when the recipient does not wish to receive it. An email can be spam, if it is a junk advertisement. A Bitcoin transaction that is sent from A to B, when both A and B wish to send and receive it, is just by definition not spam.

How about there is no such thing as spam on the blockchain. Just transactions that people who want to control other people don't like.


-Dave