Your objection to BIP110 ??

[PepeLapiu]

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.

And that is the problem right here. After 4 years of core making room for them, spammers and grifters made a home on bitcoin.

You now think you belong here. And that your retard scams belong on bitcoin. You think you have a right to inflict your dickbutt.jpeg on the 90,000 nodes.

You can't see the problem, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
You can't go along with any solution because you think you and your grift and your scams all belong here.

You will be shown the door. You will crawl back to your shitcoins and scams with your tail between your legs.

[ABCbits]

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.

More importantly, it seems they don't care about the trade-off which IMO bring far more harm than benefit.

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.

I disagree, when block have limited capacity and people have general expectation that Bitcoin blockchain is for monetary and monetary-related transaction.

[PepeLapiu]

More importantly, it seems they don't care about the trade-off which IMO bring far more harm than benefit.

Please explain. What are the trade-offs of BIP110?

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.

Spam with email and spam with bitcoin are not exactly the same. When you post a dickbutt.jpeg on chain, you are draining the limited resources of the 90,000 nodes who will have to host and distribute your stoopit spam until the end of times.

Nodes have no incentive to host and distribute your fucking scam shitcoinery.
You are making the blockchain heavier, blowing up the UTXO set, and all that stuff gets worst when you finally get around to post illicit and illegal files on chain.

The 90,000 nodes want to protect bitcoin as money. You spammers will not run a node ever because you don't value bitcoin as money.

But talking about bitcoin being money is a complete waste of time when talking with a spammer. Because you don't understand the importance of money. All you see is your stoopit jpegs and your scams. We are trying to fix the problem of spam. You can't see the problem because you are the problem.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I disagree, when block have limited capacity and people have general expectation that Bitcoin blockchain is for monetary and monetary-related transaction.

What is monetary other than voluntary? If you move bitcoin across your wallets, is that spam? No real "monetary transaction" takes place other than the mining fee.

The way I view the block space is as a market good that is sold by miners to willing buyers, and I think this is the most accurate and most economically sound description. Any position asserting that valid transactions should be disallowed on the basis of block space scarcity effectively contravenes a fundamental economic principle; that of voluntary exchange.

If one accepts that Bitcoin is a censorship-resistant, permissionless network, it follows that a transaction from A to B does not require authorization from any C.

[ABCbits]

More importantly, it seems they don't care about the trade-off which IMO bring far more harm than benefit.

Please explain. What are the trade-offs of BIP110?

I already mentioned it many times, so i'll say again that i mostly agree with article https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/. In addition,

1. It would block some address/UTXO for monetary purpose, such as inheritance.

Experimental? It's mainstream enough where some company and wallet offer inheritance service or feature. See https://thebitcoinhole.com/inheritance. Many of them use non-custodial or shared custodial method, so expect lots of OP_IF or deep taproot tree depth if the current BTC owner have lots of family members or friends.

2. Even if they can spend after a year, it's still censorship. Consider the possibility they may need the Bitcoin for important/urgent stuff.
3. and other point that i mentioned in past.

I disagree, when block have limited capacity and people have general expectation that Bitcoin blockchain is for monetary and monetary-related transaction.

What is monetary other than voluntary? If you move bitcoin across your wallets, is that spam? No real "monetary transaction" takes place other than the mining fee.

The way I view the block space is as a market good that is sold by miners to willing buyers, and I think this is the most accurate and most economically sound description. Any position asserting that valid transactions should be disallowed on the basis of block space scarcity effectively contravenes a fundamental economic principle; that of voluntary exchange.

If one accepts that Bitcoin is a censorship-resistant, permissionless network, it follows that a transaction from A to B does not require authorization from any C.

My general definition is transaction that have goal to move/send Bitcoin either to yourself or someone else. Stuff such as ordinal and runes TX have different goal, such as adding arbitrary data, minting token or moving token ownership.

[ertil]

nodes who will have to host and distribute your stoopit spam until the end of times

This is not true, and it is even described in the whitepaper, see chapter 7: "Reclaiming Disk Space".

Nodes have no incentive to host and distribute

And they don't, if they are pruned.

You can't see the problem because you are the problem.

It doesn't matter, if you have a fully filled block with only monetary transactions, or with data pushes. It doesn't change anything for the Initial Blockchain Download.

If you move bitcoin across your wallets, is that spam?

Every transaction is a spam, which makes Initial Blockchain Download more and more difficult over time. Ideally, the size of the chain would equal the size of the UTXO set. It is bigger in practice, because some nodes also carry the history, which is needed to bring new nodes in a trustless way. But that is true only in the current implementation, and can be changed in the future.

Even if they can spend after a year

They won't, because if BIP-110 will succeed anywhere, then that group will prepare next BIPs, restricting things even further. And it will never stop, until all transactions will be blocked.

My general definition is transaction that have goal to move/send Bitcoin either to yourself or someone else.

Splitting transactions into monetary and non-monetary doesn't help to solve problems like Initial Blockchain Download. From the point of view of existing users, it doesn't matter, if some blocks, mined 10 years ago, contain data pushes, or real coin transfers. All that matters, is how many things you have to check, to trustlessly make new nodes.

[PepeLapiu]

The way I view the block space is as a market good that is sold by miners to willing buyers

Bitcoin is money. The blockchain is a ledger for monetary transactions. The bitcoin chain IS NOT a repository for every god damn piece of scam you come up with.

You know you don't belong in the bitcoin space. You know your spam is undesirable here. Which is why you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, fake witness, and dust amounts. Because you have to trick the system into accepting your garbage as genuine monetary transactions.

If one accepts that Bitcoin is a censorship-resistant, permissionless network, it follows that a transaction from A to B does not require authorization from any C.

We accept bitcoin as a monetary network. Bitcoin is censorship resistant permissionless money. Bitcoin is not decentralized permissionless garbage files sharing network.

You can't understand the problem because YOU ARE the fucking problem. You are a spammer, a grifter, an attacker. And you will be routed out.

[BlackHatCoiner]

At the end of the day, information is easy to spread across multiple methods, and no proposal can completely eradicate all those methods. Even if majority of hashrate voted for BIP110, spam would just take another form, like in signatures or in dust outputs.

I'm glad that most people who care about BIP110 are insignificant and have no power to force change. Alas if powerless entities could change the rules of Bitcoin; it would not be censorship resistant then.

[DaveF]

What's funny is Pepe still can't answer the basic questions:

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?

As of this moment if 110 goes live there is going to be no way to actually do anything with it. Except send coins while sitting in front of a computer.
Even this many months before the 2017 fork there were services with statements about support.
There were exchanges with statements about support.
For 110 nothing.

Guess everyone who wants to use lukecoin on the go is going to bringing their laptops with 5g connections everywhere so they can send coins if needed.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

What's funny is Pepe still can't answer the basic questions:

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?

Miners, gateways, exchanges, pools, none of these people decide the rules or apply the rules.
Those are all highly centralized and corporatized entities. Do you really want them to decide the rules of bitcoin?

As of this moment if 110 goes live there is going to be no way to actually do anything with it. Except send coins while sitting in front of a computer.

That's what money is. You can send it, receive it, or save it. If you find that boring, ETH always you. Bitcoin will stop being your dumpster for dickbutt.jpegs.

Even this many months before the 2017 fork there were services with statements about support.
There were exchanges with statements about support.
For 110 nothing.

Segwit was the first upgrade via soft fork. A lot of people didn't know what to expect. But the time Taproot soft fork rolled around, most nobody was making noise about it.

The influencers silence over BIP110 does annoy me. I think it shows they are controlled on compromised in some way.

Guess everyone who wants to use lukecoin on the go is going to bringing their laptops with 5g connections everywhere so they can send coins if needed.

What new bullshit FUD did you just pull out of your ass? You think BIP110 won't allow other devises to run your wallet?

Here is the reality. You didn't need to change your wallet or your node for the Segwit and Taproot upgrades. Same with BIP110. Nothing will change for you unless you are a spammer.

[ertil]

You didn't need to change your wallet or your node for the Segwit and Taproot upgrades. Same with BIP110.

When a given soft-fork is supported by hashrate majority, everyone lands on the same chain. When it is activated unconditionally by some minority, then old users stay with the old chain, and new users have to mine blocks by themselves.

That's what money is. You can send it, receive it, or save it.

If you fire 99% employees (miners), who will do the job? Of course you can always make a new transaction, but if only 1% of miners are actively working to confirm it, then you have to wait one day for a new block, or mine it by yourself.

Miners, gateways, exchanges, pools, none of these people decide the rules or apply the rules.

If you use a coin, which is used by a small minority, then it stops being useful. You can always change your code, but if the majority won't do that, then you won't be able to transact with that majority on the same coin. And then, using a minority soft-fork is similar to using an altcoin.

[PepeLapiu]

You didn't need to change your wallet or your node for the Segwit and Taproot upgrades. Same with BIP110.

When a given soft-fork is supported by hashrate majority, everyone lands on the same chain.

If that were true, Segwit and BIP148 would have never susceeded. There is no way the majority of pools and miners would have gotten behind an upgrade that cuts their fees in half at a time when fees were at an all time high, and expected to keep going up. There is no way miners were going to sign up for something that was cutting their machines performance by 20%. They still accepted Segwit because a minority of less than 5% of the nodes told them to. We told them STFU and run BIP148. And they did. Same will happen with BIP110.

This time around, we have fewer miners signalling for it, but more than 2x the amount of nodes telling them to do so. And we are still 4 months away from it. Let's see if we get more miners signalling for BIP110 as we get closer to September.

Miners and nodes will feel far less pain with BIP110 than they did with BIP148.

When it is activated unconditionally by some minority, then old users stay with the old chain, and new users have to mine blocks by themselves.

Yup, and the same applied to Segwit and Taproot. And BIP110 is far less damaging to miners than Segwit was.

That's what money is. You can send it, receive it, or save it.

If you fire 99% employees (miners), who will do the job? Of course you can always make a new transaction, but if only 1% of miners are actively working to confirm it, then you have to wait one day for a new block, or mine it by yourself.

Nobody is firing anyone. The miners are given a choice: here is the new contract. You can sign on the dotted line or get your pink slip. The miners decide if they fire themselves or not.

Miners, gateways, exchanges, pools, none of these people decide the rules or apply the rules.

If you use a coin, which is used by a small minority, then it stops being useful.

I guess we find out in September. I'll revisit this comment than.

Look, you want to argue about predictions and game theory all day long.

How about you just tell me what are your objections to BIP110?

At the end of the day, information is easy to spread across multiple methods, and no proposal can completely eradicate all those methods. Even if majority of hashrate voted for BIP110, spam would just take another form, like in signatures or in dust outputs.

This is a lousy defeatist way to look at things. The stoopit "cat and mouse game" idea. And you attempt to claim that resistance is futile, so we might as well give up and give in to spammers.

The problem with the "cat and mouse game" argument is that it ignores that a barn with cats gas fewer mice than a barn without cats.
And it also ignores basic human behavior. Spammers who see bitcoin willing to rug them and cause them trouble are less likely to stick around and go on to shitcoins like ETH that are actually designed to accommodate your spam and scams.

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

In order to get your coin temporarily unspendable, you would have to be a pretty advanced user while simultaneously living under a rock and be totally unaware of the controversy, and also using an outdated wallet, or a wallet that refuses to update to the new rules.

The miner taking up a few floors where I work is mining about 1 block a month. When they mined one last month the person they convert to fiat through mentioned that his people will not be supporting 110. They had no idea what 110 was. So people with many ehs of mining equipment across many locations had no idea what this fork was about. Not living under a rock and very active in the crypto communnity.


My objection is that after doing more research about luke has been known to block / censor addresses that he does not like.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ityg2/warning_bitcoin_address_blacklists_have_been/

This is the same thing.
What happens when de and you don't like the addresses in this transaction because I said fuck you to you and him and his stupid fucking idea.

https://mempool.space/tx/5fdc50204996a44c1ce0a399c562e90b6de144f5848a40c66cf0793c0ca1460f

He also thinks blocks should revert to 300k
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/201905040250.10240.luke@dashjr.org/

- By default, blocks mined with Bitcoin Knots will be limited to 300k
  in size, or 1.5 MWU in weight. Note these defaults are just healthy
  recommendations, and can be overridden with the `-blockmaxsize` and
  `-blockmaxweight` options.

So how about this. Don't go away mad, just go away. You left Canada go ahead and leave here too. We don't want you here. And here I mean this forum or Canada.

[ertil]

How about you just tell me what are your objections to BIP110?

No objections, because "mandatory activation" will hurt BIP-110 supporters harder, than many other things could. If BIP-110 will be supported only by some minority, then it will be just an altcoin like BCH, and many others. Many people, including me, are ready to sell BIP-110 coins for old BTCs, but I guess there will be not enough people pushing BIP-110 chain forward, so it will be hard to make any payment, when blocks will be produced once or twice per day, instead of every 10 minutes.

a barn with cats gas fewer mice than a barn without cats

If cats are destroying walls, and making the whole farm unusable, by eating all available food, including owner's dinner, then people have an incentive to use it as a testing playground, than treat it seriously. BIP-110 chain will be just a "warnet": imagine a chain, that is heavily censored, and you have a challenge, to push any data there, and see it accepted as a normal payment. I expect it will be used by many people just to test, how fast developers would adapt new filters. So far, nobody invented a way to block data pushes in private keys, which means, that many protocols can just switch to that, and see, if Knots will try to do any kind of KYC, or anything like that, to only see "approved" keys being revealed on-chain. Because all Knots supporters underestimate the fact, that spammers will simply adjust, and adapt. If you block certain ways of spending coins, then people will invent others, which will be more harmful for regular users, until reaching the point, where filters will equally censor spammers, and regular users. And at that point, many restrictions could simply be lifted, to have anything usable, instead of having just a large group of testers, trying to check all possible limits.

But, it is much more likely, that a simple Proof of Work will act as a bigger filter, than anything BIP-110 supporters could invent, equally filtering all of their blocks from being mined every 10 minutes.

Edit:

He also thinks blocks should revert to 300k

Existing signet is limited to 1 MB witness, which means 250k legacy space. It can work in testnets, so it can work in BIP-110 chain as well. Anyway, if you block a lot of transactions, then you don't need a lot of space. I wonder, if mining empty blocks, only with the coinbase transaction, would make BIP-110 users happy. Because then, everything will be filtered properly. Luke did it in the past to CoiledCoin, so maybe the same thing should be done on BIP-110 chain? It depends, how low their difficulty would fall, or if they would artificially lower it in the code. Because for a high difficulty, and low trading value, it may be not worth mining. But if it will fall, then who knows? Many miners played with BCH, BSV, or other chains, by doing 51% attacks there, it is just a matter of incentive. And if they don't care about hashrate majority, then it can be used, just for testing things, if it will be profitable.

[DaveF]

a barn with cats gas fewer mice than a barn without cats

If cats are destroying walls, and making the whole farm unusable, by eating all available food, including owner's dinner, then people have an incentive to use it as a testing playground, than treat it seriously. BIP-110 chain will be just a "warnet": imagine a chain, that is heavily censored, and you have a challenge, to push any data there, and see it accepted as a normal payment. I expect it will be used by many people just to test, how fast developers would adapt new filters. So far, nobody invented a way to block data pushes in private keys, which means, that many protocols can just switch to that, and see, if Knots will try to do any kind of KYC, or anything like that, to only see "approved" keys being revealed on-chain. Because all Knots supporters underestimate the fact, that spammers will simply adjust, and adapt. If you block certain ways of spending coins, then people will invent others, which will be more harmful for regular users, until reaching the point, where filters will equally censor spammers, and regular users. And at that point, many restrictions could simply be lifted, to have anything usable, instead of having just a large group of testers, trying to check all possible limits.

But, it is much more likely, that a simple Proof of Work will act as a bigger filter, than anything BIP-110 supporters could invent, equally filtering all of their blocks from being mined every 10 minutes.

Or I pointed out if most of the rats are in the barn, they are not eating the wires in your car, getting into your house and everything else. Yes they can leave but at least in a barn they are controllable somewhat. What lukecoin does is burn down the barn causing the rate to scatter everywhere making them impossible to even slightly control.

On a side note, if you want to make some money even if you can't sell your forked coins:
https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-be-enforced-on-bitcoin-by-sept-1-2026-1770282509
Which honestly is kind of fun since as we all know luke is anti gambling.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

I know you're just going to ignore this

On the contrary Greg. I've quoted and replied this specific message in several places. The shit you say is so ridiculous, that it just can't be ignored.

or delete my reply because you have on the several other occasions

Stop lying you fucking clown. I warned you if you don't learn to write with respect, your post will be deleted. Than you called me an idiot, or stupid, or something to that effect. And I only deleted one of your posts, not more than that.

But for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen where this is pointed out:

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.    These presigned transactions can pay to any valid address, for example a 4 of 8 taproot multisig that has a tree depth of more than 7 levels (e.g. family members/friends/heirs).

BIP110 would functionally destroy these coins.  

No you retard. If you delete your keys, your coin will be lost with or without BIP110. And that's been true since 2009 when BTC was  created.

But please entertain me. Can you find a single tutorial anywhere on the net that teaches you to delete your keys as part of a security scheme?

We can find anything on the internet. Surely you can find a tutorial that teaches you to delete your keys to protect your coin. No?

They can't be moved in advance no matter how much notice given due to the timelock.

If you deleted your keys, your coin can't be moved in advance, on time, or later.

They outputs created by them would not be grandfathered because they would be new outputs at the time the timelock expires rather than old.  

That is an absolute lie. If the commit was created prior to BIP110 activation, your redeem will be grandfathered in.

[gmaxwell]

Lets make a trade then, --- we'll pick some neutral arbitration process, to decide if I'm right or you are right that if a coin is controlled by a classical timelock commit authored now that pays to a 110 prohibited script (such as a big multisig) that those coins would be lose forever (or at least as long as 110 applied).  And whomever is wrong according to it will leave the forum forever.  I'm ready to negotiate towards that, are you?  Or are you ready to admit that you know the position you've adopted is untrue?

[PepeLapiu]

Lets make a trade then,

Let me offer you a trade.

If you find a single tutorial on line that shows you how to commit your coin with op_if in Taproot, and suggests you delete your keys, I will leave the forum forever.

BUT it has to be at least 8 months old, prior to BIP110 publication.
And if you can't, you must leave the forum forever.
Deal?

we'll pick some neutral arbitration process, to decide if I'm right or you are right that if a coin is controlled by a classical timelock commit authored now that pays to a 110 prohibited script (such as a big multisig) that those coins would be lose forever (or at least as long as 110 applied).  

I'm in!
But I don't use Taproot or convoluted inheritance schemes of any kind. and I don't delete keys, ever.
So I'll need to find someone I can trust to look over the deal.

And whomever is wrong according to it will leave the forum forever.  I'm ready to negotiate towards that, are you?  Or are you ready to admit that you know the position you've adopted is untrue?

I'm willing to admit you are a sell out.

Here are the terms:
We have to do exactly what you describe here. Commit to sone convoluted inheritance scheme with op_if in Taproot before BIP110 activation. And time locked until after BIP110 activation. If the coin is unspendable, if it's not grandfathered in, you win. Else I win.

But for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen where this is pointed out:

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.    These presigned transactions can pay to any valid address, for example a 4 of 8 taproot multisig that has a tree depth of more than 7 levels (e.g. family members/friends/heirs).

BIP110 would functionally destroy these coins.  

[ertil]

If the coin is unspendable

Every Taproot address is spendable, as long as the public key is valid. Even if the key spending path is hard to get, because of being nothing-up-my-sleeve number, then still: it is spendable, because of how secp256k1 works.

if it's not grandfathered in

A transaction sending coins to an address, blocked by BIP-110, will be valid. Only a transaction spending these coins would be invalid. Which means:

Code:

+--------------------------------+
| Alice 0.03 BTC -> Bob 0.02 BTC |
+--------------------------------+
| timelock: 2026-10-15           |
+--------------------------------+

This will be valid. However:

Code:

+----------------------------------+
| Bob 0.02 BTC -> Charlie 0.01 BTC |
+----------------------------------+

This will be blocked by BIP-110, for example if Bob's address is some huge multisig. And then, if Alice's address is also a multisig, then you cannot change these conditions before BIP-110 activation, which means, that coins are lost, unless everyone from Alice's group will agree to change that presigned transaction into something else.

And then, it doesn't matter, that Alice or Bob addresses are spendable by key, if nobody knows that key alone, and if people know only k-of-n keys from these multisigs.

[PepeLapiu]

(coretatd slop removed)

So first coretards tried to claim BIP110 would confiscated your coin if you use sons convoluted inheritance scheme. I explained that any such thing with the commit done before BIP110 activation would be grandfathered in. And any such convoluted inheritance scheme with both the commit and the redeem done during BIP110 temporary activation would only be unspendable until BIP110 expires.

So retard Maxwell started to imagine an even more convoluted hostage prevention scheme where both the commit and redeem would occur during BIP110 being active, while the user deliberately deletes his keys.

Now, that is a rather stupid scenario. Dumping your keys, than blaming it on BIP110? I didn't think anyone would come up with such a retarded scenario.

And now you are talking about some absolutely retarded scheme, the most retarded scheme of all times, where two groups of people are commiting to a multisig with timelock, with absolutely none of them being aware of the new rules, all of them using a wallet that is either out of date or which refuses to enforce the new rules. And they together commit to an op_if in Taproot more retarded convoluted scheme I have ever heard.

And you tell me, in that case, they will lose their coin?
Are you fucking retarded? Do you think people who read this are retarded?

Now, let me ask you something. Is it really necessary for bitcoin to survive as money to have all those stupid "smart contracts"?

Because smart contracts are not native to bitcoin. That's some ETH bullshit you are trying to keep on bitcoin. Too complicated, too convoluted. Nobody is doing this. Nobody gives a fuck about your retarded impossible schemes.