Will BIP110 confiscate your coin?

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

And i initially thought you're joking, https://mempool.space/tx/5fdc50204996a44c1ce0a399c562e90b6de144f5848a40c66cf0793c0ca1460f.

Nope.

Here you go: https://mempool.space/tx/cc4ed1a373d108a7de23aecfc4f705f2d9fe2cbdaf35f22533434c6a4abd74ae
You should probably spend it before luke tries to censor it like he does will all addresses he does not like.

pepe fuck you again and look I just send ABC more bitcoin as a joke then you have.

[PepeLapiu]

bc1qfuckluke3jgg4x273lqvwwtzdf5k2refz4duvf
bc1qfuckluke8h233uy3p9xg95d9az5t0wz7zrscw6
bc1qfucklukeakr6n4vpl2af53leegsf49atz42qtr
bc1qfuckpepeeahm3m9ray0sn93mde8c3n73h8pglj
bc1qfuckpepevnmwhff8jmkyadh7duf6rtrd3cgnhe
1fuck11ooDoym6L2Tw3MxbwE7emMpvsNf

And fuck you once more for good measure.

That is just brilliant shitcoiner behavior. You just encombered the UTXO set with 6 spam fake pubkeys that will need to forever be carried by the UTXO set.
And you did this to insult me?
You are an insult to bitcoin.

Unless you made your fake pubkeys spendable. Which is something only shitcoiners know to do.

You are an abuser, a grifter, and you will be rooted out.

[DaveF]

bc1qfuckluke3jgg4x273lqvwwtzdf5k2refz4duvf
bc1qfuckluke8h233uy3p9xg95d9az5t0wz7zrscw6
bc1qfucklukeakr6n4vpl2af53leegsf49atz42qtr
bc1qfuckpepeeahm3m9ray0sn93mde8c3n73h8pglj
bc1qfuckpepevnmwhff8jmkyadh7duf6rtrd3cgnhe
1fuck11ooDoym6L2Tw3MxbwE7emMpvsNf

And fuck you once more for good measure.

That is just brilliant shitcoiner behavior. You just encombered the UTXO set with 6 spam fake pubkeys that will need to forever be carried by the UTXO set.
And you did this to insult me?
You are an insult to bitcoin.

Unless you made your fake pubkeys spendable. Which is something only shitcoiners know to do.

You are an abuser, a grifter, and you will be rooted out.

Man you are a special kind of stupid.
Not only are those valid addresses  and valid keys you can see they were all spent in the post just above the one you just made.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5582273.msg66742533#msg66742533

And you spelled encumbered wrong

Do you know anything at all about BTC?
Oh wait, you have proven again and again you don't.

Can't wait till August when all the knots nodes fork off and go away.
Till then we can all keep poking fun of you.

-Dave

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

Unless you made your fake pubkeys spendable. Which is something only shitcoiners know to do.

Spent them, but you are too fucking stupid to see that.

Was going to give your mom the $6 or so to lick my balls but I figured ABC could get himself a cup of coffee and I'll just give your mom the couple of Loonies I found when I was cleaning my car to lick my ass instead.

She likes the taste of it. And just think if she had done more ass licking back in the day instead of banging dozens of random guys she might not have gotten pregnant with your sorry ass so we would not have to hear your fucking stupidity.

[DaveF]

...

Dude, I said it in another post a while ago there are many many ways to insult pepe, stop with the mom / family things.
I mean it's bad enough he is going to loose any money he has invested in knots / 110 when it forks off and dies in August.
We are just trying to make sure nobody else gets suckered into it.

The schoolyard insults are just not needed.
But the addresses were funny.

-Dave

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

...

Dude, I said it in another post a while ago there are many many ways to insult pepe, stop with the mom / family things.
I mean it's bad enough he is going to loose any money he has invested in knots / 110 when it forks off and dies in August.
We are just trying to make sure nobody else gets suckered into it.

The schoolyard insults are just not needed.
But the addresses were funny.

-Dave

I get you but no you are wrong on this.

Call him names, call his family names, his friends, everyone he knows is a fair target. People like him come in and fuck things up for others.
He is a deceitful scamming thieving pile of flaming shit following a programmer who does not even know basic security so fuck him and everyone around him.

[PepeLapiu]

And i initially thought you're joking

It is just another example, that blocking data pushes could harm regular users more than spammers. Because even if BIP-110 will push us backwards to the Bitcoin version from 2009, where P2PK and P2PKH were the only address types, then still: data can be pushed in one of the oldest ways: by making vanity addresses.

You are just repeating the coretard trope: we need to bend over backwards for spammers because they could hurt us more if we don't kiss their ass. And we prefer to refer to spam as "use cases we have today".

Fake pubkets are like op_return. The reason most spammers don't use fake pubkeys is because they are too expensive. A spammer who routinely pays $30 in miner fees for an ordinal might end up paying over $120 miner fees for op_return or fake pubkeys.

First we are going to kick you out of your stoopit irdonal scam. You may decide to move on to ETH and not let the door hit you in the ass. Or you may Aldo decide to lay 4x more and use fake pubkeys, we'll deal with you than.  

And there are things we can do to mitigate or prevent fake pubkeys completely.

There was a time, when Luke tried to filter "1dice" addresses from Satoshi Dice, so it would be nothing new, if Knots would pick that direction again, but this time with consensus rules. Which of course would harm their chain even more, because then, they would need to load a dictionary, and check each address, if there are potential words or phrases, which could suggest, that nobody has the keys to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE or similar addresses.

You are so fucking ridiculous. You talk about Luke as if he was the BTC CEO capable of making the 25,000 people who run Knots do his bidding.

You can't find flaws with BIP110, so you just speculate that in some distant future, Luke will uniterally decide to ban something and everyone will go along with him.

And speaking of changing policy unilaterally and imposing this policy on every node, here's a clue: core 30/did just that.

And i initially thought you're joking

It is just another example, that blocking data pushes could harm regular users more than spammers. Because even if BIP-110 will push us backwards to the Bitcoin version from 2009, where P2PK and P2PKH were the only address types, then still: data can be pushed in one of the oldest ways: by making vanity addresses.

That is coretard brain roth and spam apologia: "We have to cater to spammers more and more because if we don't bend over for spammers, they might use fake pubkeys"

Coretardiness at it's best.

First and foremost, forcing them to fake pubkeys would be 4x more expensive than op_if in Taproot. So there would be fewer spammers as price goes 4x higher.

Secondly, there are several things that can be done to mitigate or eradicate fake pubkeys.
  - The Cat
  - The Lynx
  - Increase dust limit to where spammers would be forced to waste more coin in fake pubkeys, or make their fake pubkeys spendable.
  - Require that outputs of <100,000 sats have 2 signed messages. With an exception for a re-used inputs, or outputs to an address with already more than 100,000 sats balance.

Thirdly, no more catering and negotiating with terrorists. If coward coretards are so scared that spammers would use fake pubkeys, that means they are attackers, grifters, scammers, spammers, not legit users.

Fourth, those fucking creeps already have 40% of the UTXO set filled with spam dust UTXOs. They already have caused plenty of damage, they don't give a fuck.
You want to prevent them from polluting the UTXO set? Too fucking late, coretard. That problem would have been a lot smaller if coretards had not rejected Luke's ordinal filter 4 years ago.

The core/brink/blockstream/Epstein class caused the problem by refusing to do anything about spam for the last 5 years. Coretards have been marked for deprecation.

[ABCbits]

And i initially thought you're joking

It is just another example, that blocking data pushes could harm regular users more than spammers.
--snip--

Good point. But the reason i though he's joking is because i don't expect he would actually import the private keys to a wallet and send any amount of Bitcoin to those address.

And i initially thought you're joking, https://mempool.space/tx/5fdc50204996a44c1ce0a399c562e90b6de144f5848a40c66cf0793c0ca1460f.

Nope.

Here you go: https://mempool.space/tx/cc4ed1a373d108a7de23aecfc4f705f2d9fe2cbdaf35f22533434c6a4abd74ae
You should probably spend it before luke tries to censor it like he does will all addresses he does not like.

pepe fuck you again and look I just send ABC more bitcoin as a joke then you have.

Wow, this is probably most unique reason how i got money on internet .

bc1qfuckluke3jgg4x273lqvwwtzdf5k2refz4duvf
bc1qfuckluke8h233uy3p9xg95d9az5t0wz7zrscw6
bc1qfucklukeakr6n4vpl2af53leegsf49atz42qtr
bc1qfuckpepeeahm3m9ray0sn93mde8c3n73h8pglj
bc1qfuckpepevnmwhff8jmkyadh7duf6rtrd3cgnhe
1fuck11ooDoym6L2Tw3MxbwE7emMpvsNf

And fuck you once more for good measure.

That is just brilliant shitcoiner behavior. You just encombered the UTXO set with 6 spam fake pubkeys that will need to forever be carried by the UTXO set.
And you did this to insult me?
You are an insult to bitcoin.

Unless you made your fake pubkeys spendable. Which is something only shitcoiners know to do.

You are an abuser, a grifter, and you will be rooted out.

Another non-sense. I bet you actually know those address are a called vanity address, NOT fake pubkey/address. For other reader, this is explanation of vanity address.

Vanity Addresses

Vanity addresses are valid Bitcoin addresses that contain human-readable messages. For example, 1LoveBPzzD72PUXLzCkYAtGFYmK5vYNR33 is a valid address that contains the letters forming the word "Love" as the first four base58 letters. Vanity addresses require generating and testing billions of candidate private keys until a Bitcoin address with the desired pattern is found. Although there are some optimizations in the vanity generation algorithm, the process essentially involves picking a private key at random, deriving the public key, deriving the Bitcoin address, and checking to see if it matches the desired vanity pattern, repeating billions of times until a match is found.

--snip--

 - Require that outputs of <100,000 sats have 2 signed messages. With an exception for a re-used inputs, or outputs to an address with already more than 100,000 sats balance.

Once again, Who need to create the two signed message? Only the sender using sender's address?

[BitGoba]

I would not go too deep into the technical details here, because I am not a technical expert. I approach Bitcoin more from an economic perspective.

Bitcoin was created by someone with a very deep understanding of money.Bitcoin is primarily an economic and monetary innovation, not just a technological invention.That is why, before proposing any major change to Bitcoin, developers should understand the economic consequences of that change. Ideally, they should consult economists from the Austrian School of Economics  or at least take the time to seriously study Austrian economics themselves.

If you let programmers work without understanding money, they could very easily create some shitcoin like Ethereum, which has no real monetary value.And that would be the end of it a road straight to zero.

[ertil]

Once again, Who need to create the two signed message? Only the sender using sender's address?

It doesn't matter, because it can be just used as yet another way to put some message in. And then, instead of having a single key, and a single signature, he will force people to make two signatures, just to make sure, that funds are spendable. And then, keys can be random, while the signatures he will keep, could just contain data.

As usual, people underestimate, that spammers will adjust. They try to fight today's spam, without considering, that when their new limits will be active, then spammers will just switch to different methods, because it will be more profitable to do it in a different way.

Also, they underestimate the amount of potential harm they can do, by trying to stop the spam. It is like chasing a fly in a home, and not caring, if walls, windows, and furniture will be destroyed in the process, or not. And then, you can see a scene from Tom & Jerry's, where Tom caught Jerry, but destroyed everything, what was inside, and then, it turned out, that catching a single mouse was not worth it, from the home owner's perspective.

before proposing any major change to Bitcoin, developers should understand the economic consequences of that change

Doing nothing also has consequences. And it is yet another thing, which people don't understand: if you leave things unchanged, then if more people will want to use Bitcoin, their transactions will have to wait for a long time, because of too low fees. The current model won't scale to billions of users. And if it will, then it will be centralized. People will buy and sell coins on centralized exchanges, and never go on-chain at all. This is what you will get, if there will be more users, but if nothing will be changed to handle them in decentralized way.

You know, why Taproot was created with these rules, and not others? Because it is harder and harder to change things. Which means, that if we will reach the point of no soft-forks sooner, than needed changes will be allowed by consensus rules, then they won't be introduced in the future at all. Which will force everyone to scale through centralized ways, because there won't be any others deployed.

And that would be the end of it a road straight to zero.

If Bitcoin won't scale directly, then it will scale through altcoins. Not changing things, where changes are needed, is also a risk. Guess why we have centralized things like "wrapped BTCs": because decentralized ones were never deployed. Or why we have centralized transaction puzzles, where the owner could sweep all coins at any moment: because DLEQ proofs were not deployed. Or why we have centralized sidechains, which are just multisig federations: because decentralized ones were not created.

[DaveF]

Another non-sense. I bet you actually know those address are a called vanity address, NOT fake pubkey/address. For other reader, this is explanation of vanity address.

Judging from his lack of knowledge of how BTC and crypto in general works and what can be done I doubt he knew until you told him.
Looking at his early posts he thought BTC was magical internet money and could make his fortune trading.
Did not realize that there was a lot of work involved and then something happened causing him to loose it all.

At a guess he got involved in something that involved ordinals or similar and bought some ape image that cost him a lot but was really worthless.

Now he is trying to burn it down to make the rest of us suffer.

Wow, this is probably most unique reason how i got money on internet .

I just send nudes. Then I tell people that unless they pay me I'll send them more pictures of my hairy ass. Now that image is just going to live in your brain forever. :-)

The problem with people like pepe is that they make arguments, then change the rules or they use wording that makes it impossible to fight. Even the title of this thread uses deliberate language to make bad arguments. "Will BIP110 confiscate your coin?" the best answer to that is "it might". Had he been honest the title would have been "Can BIP110 confiscate your coin?" And the answer to that is "yes it can" at that point. People would see lukecoin for what it is.

But that destroys his argument.

He is a bitter nocoiner troll. And it's easy to see that because although this is an open forum, nobody wants him here. Yet he keeps coming back.
As we have all said, after August lukecoin forks and we all go along with our lives and he goes away.


-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

 - Require that outputs of <100,000 sats have 2 signed messages. With an exception for a re-used inputs, or outputs to an address with already more than 100,000 sats balance.

Once again, Who need to create the two signed message? Only the sender using sender's address?

The recipient needs to sign two messages of course. If I was to send you BTC, I can't sign messages to your recieving address, only you can do that.

If I want to send you BTC, I have to request a receiving address from you. Your wallet can sign messages to your receiving address automatically. This would ensure your receiving address is not fake pubkey.

Of course this would require some major overhaul of how wallets function, and so if we go this route, it could be implemented as a filter first. And as the adoption of the filter grows, that gives more time for wallets to adapt to the new rule. This might not be the best way to handle fake pubkeys. I personally would favor a variant of The Lynx and raising the dust limit to maybe 10,000 sats or 5,000 sats. And this dust limit could be made to gradually go down by half at every halveninat 16,

Here is how I think it would be best to make fake pubkeys harder, more expensive, and incentivize fake pubkey attackers to make their fake pubkeys spendable, and eventually do spend them:

A soft fork that would set the dust limit at the consensus level at 16384 sats. Any tx containing an output of <16384 sats would be deemed invalid at the consensus level. Exceptions could be made for an output that re-uses an input address. And possibly an output to an address that already has more than 16384 sats in it. And the dust limit could be made to half every 4 years at halvening. So a dust limit of 16384 sats now, and 8,192 sats at next halving.
This way, it would take 56 years for the dust limit to get to 1 sat.

Additionally, all UTXOs of <1000 sats that are <18 years old would be removed from the UTXO set, which would make them invalid, unspendable, and trim down the UTXO set. This restriction would expire in 18 years. So if you have a <1000 sats UTXO today, you got 18 years to consolidate that 78¢ UTXO. Wallets could warn users way ahead of time to move a specific UTXO before it becomes unspendable.

These measures would make unspendable fake pubkeys considerably more expensive. Spam attackers would be incentivized to make their fake pubkeys spendable, and eventually do spend them.
It would also clean up the UTXO set over a period of 18 years. And it would invalidate all fake pubkeys until now.

Now, I hear you coming with your complaint that it's unfair to set the dust limit at 16384 sats as it would make it impossible for anyone to send -$12.70 of coin to anyone. But that's not true. There are several ways this could be done. You'd have to use a multisig. For example, if you want to send me 15000 sats, we both commit 40000 sat to a multisig. I redeem 55000 sats and you redeem 25,000 sats minus the miner fee. Or I just give you a receiving address that already has >16384 sats.

So on chain sub-dust spends would still be possible, albeit a little bit more complicated and/or less private. But in the end, small spends are better served on LN. The main inconvenience is that it would make your stash harder to spend as your balance gets close to the dust limit. In which case, you could top up your wallet with more coin, or wait until an halvening that lowers the dust limit below your balance.

This is just one way to reduce fake pubkeys, and mitigate the harm of fake pubkeys.
But don't count on core to ever consider this. They like fake pubkeys and spam dust UTXOs. Because it gives them an excuse to cater more and more to spammers, and bend over for spammers.

[ABCbits]

 - Require that outputs of <100,000 sats have 2 signed messages. With an exception for a re-used inputs, or outputs to an address with already more than 100,000 sats balance.

Once again, Who need to create the two signed message? Only the sender using sender's address?

The recipient needs to sign two messages of course. If I was to send you BTC, I can't sign messages to your recieving address, only you can do that.

If I want to send you BTC, I have to request a receiving address from you. Your wallet can sign messages to your receiving address automatically. This would ensure your receiving address is not fake pubkey.

Of course this would require some major overhaul of how wallets function, and so if we go this route, it could be implemented as a filter first. And as the adoption of the filter grows, that gives more time for wallets to adapt to the new rule. This might not be the best way to handle fake pubkeys.

1. What kind of message used to create signed message and it's signature? Anything?
2. Have you consider security issue because exchange, services and people can't just use master public key to generate bunch of address?

I personally would favor a variant of The Lynx and

What is The Lynx? google search shows altcoin with ticker LYNX.

Now, I hear you coming with your complaint that it's unfair to set the dust limit at 16384 sats as it would make it impossible for anyone to send -$12.70 of coin to anyone. But that's not true. There are several ways this could be done. You'd have to use a multisig. For example, if you want to send me 15000 sats, we both commit 40000 sat to a multisig. I redeem 55000 sats and you redeem 25,000 sats minus the miner fee. Or I just give you a receiving address that already has >16384 sats.

So on chain sub-dust spends would still be possible, albeit a little bit more complicated and/or less private. But in the end, small spends are better served on LN. The main inconvenience is that it would make your stash harder to spend as your balance gets close to the dust limit. In which case, you could top up your wallet with more coin, or wait until an halvening that lowers the dust limit below your balance.

1. Have you consider that most Bitcoin wallet have no multi-sig support?
2. Do you realize such non-user friendly workaround either force people make multiple TX (which means less block capacity for other people TX) or reduce privacy (due to address reuse)?
3. Have consider that average people would find such limitation are not intuitive and likely make them confused or frustrated?

[ertil]

Your wallet can sign messages to your receiving address automatically. This would ensure your receiving address is not fake pubkey.

While also breaking all non-interactive payments at the same time. It would basically bring us back to Pay-to-IP world, where the recipient cannot be offline, to receive anything.

Exceptions could be made for an output that re-uses an input address.

Providing an incentive to reuse addresses, and harm users privacy? Great idea. Yet another reason to not use BIP-110 chain, which will probably include next BIPs like that.

Wallets could warn users way ahead of time to move a specific UTXO before it becomes unspendable.

Which won't change anything, if someone used OP_SIZE on a DER signature, for example: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qss67lljllhph4wnmzn7f8qpc3wh6q48hlpfpznt9sz2lntw963nssn6kzm

You cannot tell that user "just sign it with your private key", because this is not the only condition needed to move it. You also need a valid 9-byte signature.

And also, you never know, which sighashes are used, and how many coins are really connected with a given UTXO in pre-signed transactions. For example: what was the reward for claiming bc1qts0jh2d2nesmketmw3thedwrx939k2tqu04gy90x9hd4049g4uhs83ltjx? You think 54,000 satoshis? Wrong, it was bumped into 254,000 satoshis. And in a similar way, any dust output can be bumped. If you block it, then you invalidate these pre-signed transactions, which could block more UTXOs as a result.

For example: this is what you can see in the UTXO set:

Code:

+----------------------+
| Alice 0.00000987 BTC |
+----------------------+

And this is what is pre-signed, for example with SIGHASH_SINGLE:

Code:

+------------------------------------------------+
| Bob   0.01000000 BTC -> Charlie 0.01000000 BTC |
| Alice 0.00000987 BTC                           |
+------------------------------------------------+
| timelock: 2026-07-08                           |
+------------------------------------------------+

And now, if you block Alice's coins, then suddenly, Charlie will lose 0.01 BTC, because of that. If Charlie only has a timelocked transaction from Bob, then he can only broadcast it. He doesn't know Bob's key, or Alice's key, so any warning from his wallet won't help there anyway. If his transaction is timelocked, then it cannot be broadcasted earlier, so new rules are activated, and now, you took coins from Alice, by removing them from the UTXO set, so now Charlie lost them, too.

Code:

+-----------------------------------------------+
| Bob   0.01000000 BTC -> Daniel 0.00999000 BTC |
+-----------------------------------------------+
| timelock: 2026-09-10                          |
+-----------------------------------------------+

And later, Daniel can receive 0.00999000 BTC from Bob, even though Charlie should get 0.01 BTCs earlier. Great system!

[PepeLapiu]

1. What kind of message used to create signed message and it's signature? Anything?
2. Have you consider security issue because exchange, services and people can't just use master public key to generate bunch of address?

I can't answer your questions as two sigs per output is my least favorite method and the one I understand the least.

What is The Lynx? google search shows altcoin with ticker LYNX.

Not important. What I describe is a variant of The Lynx. No need to enquire anymore about it as there are aspects of The Lynx I don't like.

1. Have you consider that most Bitcoin wallet have no multi-sig support?

Read my post again. Multisig is just one way to play along with the rules.
Wallet updates are a thing. The dust limit is already a thing. I'd only raise the existing dist limit and move it to consensus. It's not forcing any wallets to re-invebt the wheel.

2. Do you realize such non-user friendly workaround either force people make multiple TX (which means less block capacity for other people TX) or reduce privacy (due to address reuse)?

You are trying way too hard to find flaws. You are clinging too much to your ability to keep spamming.
The vast majority of on chain transactions are above my proposed limit. I don't have the numbers on this. But I can't recall if I ever did send any sats to anyone under my proposed dust limit.

The complications would only occur when people deal with dust amounts. And most of the workarounds would be handled by the wallet itself.

The 35% of wallets that still re-use addresses wouldn't have to change much, other than raising their existing dust limit.

Better designed wallets would handle almost all of it, if not all of it at the software levelz without the user even being aware of anything. Except maybe when trying to send less than the raised $12 dust limit. Or when they let their balance get too low near the dust limit.

And I don't really have a problem putting some limits and inconveniences around small UTXOs. In the end, if we want bitcoin to scale, we can't be doing a zillion pocket change txs on chain. L2's are better suited for that.

3. Have consider that average people would find such limitation are not intuitive and likely make them confused or frustrated?

Stop it. Most users wouldn't notice any difference unless they try Townsend less than the dust amount or if they let their balance get too low.

In the end, you don't really care about the problem. You don't really think spam is a problem. You don't really have a problem with core referring to spam as "use cases we have today". You think rejectijgba spam filter as " too controversial" was just fine, and you don't think blowing open an existing spam filter was at all "too controversial".

So long as you don't see a problem at all, any compromise, no matter how small, you will wavevoff as unacceptable.

You like spam. You don't think spam is a problem. You only use things like fake pubkeys and UTXO dust when in service of spam.

For example, when Luke proposed an ordinal filter, the coretards were not concerned at all with the UTXO set. And a few years later, when they want to blow up a spam filter, they suddenly care about dust UTXOs and fake pubkeys?

If core really cared about the UTXO set, they would have accepted Luke's ordinal filter, instead of calling it "too controversial" by listening to spammers.