BIP-110 / Knots Designed To Fork Off From The Beginning (and fail)

[PepeLapiu]

Aside, the preferential peering thing probably causes luke-jr's node counter to massively overestimate the number of knots nodes.

This is absurd. Luke doesn't use preferencial peering for node counts.

You keep clutching at your pearls, always pretending the Knots nodes are faked and over-estimated. Good job. I welcome your complaisance and arrogance.

[gmaxwell]

Knots uses preferential peering, the code was posted here-- you even (eventually) admitted to it.  The node counting mechanism he's used could easily be distorted by it-- and would *obviously* be distorted by it without special handling.  Is there any? who knows. The exact methodology is a secret.  However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

It's pretty obvious why this is so: Luke's count works on the assumption that each node will make 8 outgoing full connections, and the probability of his node getting each of those  connections inbound to him is ~1/listeners. So each peer he sees inbound counts for so many thousand assumed peers.  But since knots peers are more likely to connect to his knots-running-node they will get over-counted unless they're specially compensated.  Maybe they are, maybe not, -- but preferential peering likely explains why his numbers are higher than other observations.

[PepeLapiu]

Yeah, you're right. All Knots nodes are basically fake and all those who complain about core removing a filter and gaslighting use about, they are just bots.

Only a minority of idiots who think bitcoin should be money are making noise about it.

Go back to sleep, don't worry about it.

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

You are the one clutching your pearls over the idea that Knots does preferential peering as some sort of secret conspiracy to abandon Bitcoin and surrender Bitcoin to spammers. [/tin_foil_hat]

So if Knots does preferencial peering, and we do, you would see a lot fewer Knots nodes connecting to you.

That should be no problem for you as you think any Knots peer would somehow prevent all other peers you are connected with to relay malware to you.

Point being, you would see far fewer Knots nodes if we were doing preferencial peering, and we are, so....

And the black list spamware I posted, they compile their black list from bitnodes.io. I imagine they think bitnode.io to be fairly accurate if they use it.

And before it went down, bitnodes.io was showing 22% Knots nodes and 9% BIP110 nodes. Luke claims 25% and 10%. So if he's pumping his numbers, he's not doing a good job of it.

[NotATether]

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

This is not 2017 anymore. Exchanges are going to be wary before listing new Bitcoin forks. Bcash forked and then crashed hard, and exchanges learned the hard way about forks.

[ABCbits]

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

From few website i checked, the number have some difference.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html currently says 19045 (20.65%) nodes (that probably reach his seed server) use Knots.
https://bitref.com/nodes/ currently says 3075 (16.7%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://coin.dance/nodes currently says 5390 (22.65%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://www.dsn.kastel.kit.edu/bitcoin/#useragents, the raw data shows at 1777341751 says there are 301 (5.07%) nodes connected to their own node use Knots.
https://bitdis.org/ currently says 6061 (22.06) nodes (probably only listening ones) use Knots.

Is there anything i missed?

[PepeLapiu]

Is there anything i missed?

Keep in mind that node count is a wildly innacure thing. It's often more of a guessing and extrapolating game than anything else. It's not like we have a list of government registered nodes. Even Luke Dashjr tells me his numbers are as accurate as he can make them, but still not very accurate.
And furthermore, many of them go on and off all the time.

But here are more sites that put out node counts:

https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/
20.51% Knots/BIP110 nodes

https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=knots
23% Knots/BIP110 nodes the last time I checked before it went down

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html
10.20% BIP110 nodes, no figures for Knots nodes.

Also, keep in mind that Ocean pool grew from 2% pool dominance last year before the spam war kicked off to double that at 4% now. Some miners, especially pleb miners are switching from centralized pools to Ocean in order to mine their own blocks, build their own templates, and signal for BIP110.

In fact there is only 0.5% of the hash rate signalling for BIP110 right now, but they are all with Ocean.

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

You were lied to. BIP110 proponents have absolutely no desire whatsoever to walk away from bitcoin and surrender bitcoin to coretards and spammers.

The same coretards who have been telling us for the last 6 months that we should just hard fork away from bitcoin are now telling us we actually were secretly planning to hard fork away all along.

They are full of shit.

They have been begging us and teasing us for the last 6-8 months to hard fork off to "lukecoin" already and leave them alone with their dickbutt.jpegs.

Now they claim a hard fork is what we wanted all along?

We are going to set Bitcoin back on the right path as money. We are not giving up to malware.

[DaveF]

Knots uses preferential peering, the code was posted here-- you even (eventually) admitted to it.  The node counting mechanism he's used could easily be distorted by it-- and would *obviously* be distorted by it without special handling.  Is there any? who knows. The methodology is a secret.  However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

Yup, I posted about it a while ago about the minimal numbers of knots nodes I saw connecting to any of my nodes vs the percentages that were supposed to be out there.
Since we all now know that knots peers more to itself then others that was probably part of it. And the fact that so many of the knots nodes appear to just be a few nodes with multiple .onion addresses and very lite machines just acting as a proxy for a few nodes.

Here is a hint guys, when dozens and dozens and dozens of .onion nodes appear at once that have never been seen before all fully synced they were easy to spot.
With bitnodes offline it's more difficult to see, but I am sure nothing has really changed.

-Dave

[Satofan44]

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

From few website i checked, the number have some difference.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html currently says 19045 (20.65%) nodes (that probably reach his seed server) use Knots.
https://bitref.com/nodes/ currently says 3075 (16.7%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://coin.dance/nodes currently says 5390 (22.65%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://www.dsn.kastel.kit.edu/bitcoin/#useragents, the raw data shows at 1777341751 says there are 301 (5.07%) nodes connected to their own node use Knots.
https://bitdis.org/ currently says 6061 (22.06) nodes (probably only listening ones) use Knots.

Is there anything i missed?

With such variance (from 5% to 22%) and preferential peer selection, you can't trust the numbers or conclude anything at all. After looking at these numbers, I checked my own node which has been running for a very long time without interruption. I have about 15% connections being Knots. So yes gmaxwell is right, his number differ wildly from actual observations. One may think that it is only a 5% difference, but 20% is higher by 35% than 15% which is a big divergence and this is with my numbers being high. If you have something like 5% like the source number 4, then you could even claim that the data from Luke is completely fake based on how much it diverges from his own.

However, it is quite easy for them. Create many sybil nodes, and when you have preferential peering you will catch them all easily. 

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

This is not 2017 anymore. Exchanges are going to be wary before listing new Bitcoin forks. Bcash forked and then crashed hard, and exchanges learned the hard way about forks.

With the ETFs and whole financial system involvement combined with the experience of past scam attempts by Roger Ver and the other fake retard the chance of any scammy fork like this one succeeding is exactly 0%.

[PepeLapiu]

So let me get this right.

- The malware that attempts to blacklist Knots nodes was in fact using bitnodes.io to find which Knots nodes to block. And bitnodes.io had Knots nodes at 23% the last time it was online. But those are fake numbers. Now why would they use a fake site with fake node counts to blacklist Knots?

- Any YT video where any defender of core says anything, gets killed in the comments. But those are all fake.

- On X core's announcement of spamware 30 gets absolutely killed in the comments. But those are all fake comments from fake bots that all seem to have been around for years, with plenty of activity all over X: https://x.com/bitcoincoreorg/status/1977300150751269261

- Malware core 30 effectively removes a spam filter and any push back is completely fake. We can think of no reason at all why the community would be upset about that!

- It's perfectly acceptable for core nodes to blacklist all Knots nodes to increase node performance by making sure all your peers relay all the spam to you. But if Knots does a much milder version of this with preferencial peering, they are secretly trying to give up on Bitcoin, surrender Bitcoin to spammers, and fork off to our own "lukecoin".

- The Epstein files mention Adam Back and BlockStream but none of this is true because Back remains completely silent about it and Maxwell claims that Epstein divested soon after. Nothing to worry about here. We'll consider the allegations true only if everyone involved confess on town square that they are controlled by a pedo blackmail operation.


Nothing to worry about here guys. Go back to sleep.

Knots uses preferential peering, the code was posted here-- you even (eventually) admitted to it.

I'm not rejecting the fact that knots nodes do preferential peering. I'm rejecting your absurd assumption that Luke's node count mechanism incorporates preferencial peering.

[DaveF]

pepe, the next time you refer to something as malware without showing in the code that what it does meets the definition of malware you entire post gets deleted

Malware, a portmanteau of malicious software, refers to any program or code specifically designed to damage, disrupt, or gain unauthorized access to computer systems, networks, or devices

Deliberately installed software that behaves the way is should is not malware, even if you don't like what it does is not malware.

Everyone, this is not supposed to be an opinion thread. There are other posts for that. This thread was supposed to be a bit more tech / programming discussion.
I have tried to keep a light hand on it. But, I really don't want it getting out of hand.

Same thing applies to me, there was a nice spaces stream on X that I linked to elsewhere about what is going to happen in August with 110.
They discussed the math and game theory behind about what is going to happen.
But, they (going back to high school math teacher mode) did not show their work. It's easy to say if Core has 90% of the hash and knots has 10% then this will happen.
Since there was no video, we didn't get a nice whiteboard showing the math behind it. So it does not belong here. Because at that point you can't back it up.


-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

With such variance (from 5% to 22%) and preferential peer selection, you can't trust the numbers or conclude anything at all.

Well, you can at least accept the lower number at 5%. No?
Sure, counting nodes is a very iffy and innacurate thing most all the time.
You'd find that those who are anti-BIP110 will more likely gravitate towards the low numbers, and those who endorse BIP110 will gravitare towards the higher numbers. The truth is likely somewhere in between. I'd be hard pressed to conclude there is less than 5% of nodes running BIP110.
Your attempt to go straight to the lowest number of 5% and attempt to dismiss even that one, really shows your bias.

After looking at these numbers, I checked my own node which has been running for a very long time without interruption. I have about 15% connections being Knots.

Considering what I know of Knots preferencial peering, 15% is on the high end for a core node. My informal survey tells me that the typical core node sees around 10-15% Knots on their peer list.

That's because Knots nodes connect mostly to each other. So when you see 10-15% Knots in your peers, you should extrapolate that there are more Knots nodes than you actually see. Because they are somewhat hiding from you, in part.

So yes gmaxwell is right, his number differ wildly from actual observations. One may think that it is only a 5% difference, but 20% is higher by 35% than 15% which is a big divergence and this is with my numbers being high. If you have something like 5% like the source number 4, then you could even claim that the data from Luke is completely fake based on how much it diverges from his own.

Trying to extrapolate node count based on your peer list is extremely innacure. My node sees over 60% Knots nodes in my peers. Yours sees 15% of your peers being Knots. So any common sense based on your node and mine should tell you the real node count is somewhere in between 15% and 60%.

However, it is quite easy for them. Create many sybil nodes, and when you have preferential peering you will catch them all easily.  

Given your bias and your willingness to underestimate even your own peer list when you should be overestimating it, it's no surprise that you would elect to decide whatever Knots nodes are put there are all fake.

With the ETFs and whole financial system involvement combined with the experience of past scam attempts by Roger Ver and the other fake retard the chance of any scammy fork like this one succeeding is exactly 0%.

I like it when coretards are being compleasant and arrogant. These are not the traits of a true bitcoiner.

"Stay humble and stack sats"
has been replaced with
"Be arrogant and stack dickbutt.jpegs"

The fact is that I don't think Roger Ver had bad intensions. I think he was misguided and unable to re-evaluate his views. He wanted bitcoin to susceed as money, and as a means of exchange. The problem is that he was willing to sacrifice nodes and decentralization for the ability to buy coffee on chain.

In this spam war, the coretards are more or less taking Ver's position. They believe that node sovereignty and the ability to run a node is not all that important. And that we can tax the nodes with whatever junk without consequences.

Ver was willing to sacrifice the only decentralized part of bitcoin (the nodes) for the ability to buy a coffee on chain.

Coretards are willing to sacrifice the nodes for the ability to upload any file they desire to the 100,000 nodes. It's not decentralised money to coretards, it's decentralised whatever you want.

I don't agree with Ver on all of this. But his position is more defensible than the coretard's position.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You were lied to. BIP110 proponents have absolutely no desire whatsoever to walk away from bitcoin and surrender bitcoin to coretards and spammers.

Are you still deluding yourself that BIP110 will not lead to a chain split? You're forking yourself out of the network voluntarily. If you don't have hashrate majority, prepare to say goodbye to the Bitcoin chain. If you had no desire to walk away from Bitcoin, you would not support a change in the protocol that would make your node opt-out of Bitcoin.

You have a malware installed that may result in loss of funds in a couple of months, in case you're unaware.

[PepeLapiu]

Are you still deluding yourself that BIP110 will not lead to a chain split?

What does the S in RDTS stand for? I'll give you two options:
- The S in RDTS stands for Soft fork
- The S in RDTS stands for Hard fork

You're forking yourself out of the network voluntarily.

Nope, we are forking the malware assholes out of the network. Not forking ourselves out of the network. Cry me a river.

If you don't have hashrate majority, prepare to say goodbye to the Bitcoin chain.

Let's find out in September. Get your popcorn.

If you had no desire to walk away from Bitcoin, you would not support a change in the protocol that would make your node opt-out of Bitcoin.

Stay dumb and arrogant. Real bitcoiners will show you out in September.

You have a malware installed that may result in loss of funds in a couple of months, in case you're unaware.

Liar! Here Greg Maxwell explains exactly how BIP110 will not confiscate your coin unless you play real stupid games and delete your private keys. Which will cause you to lose your coin in all cases ever since 2009:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5582273.0

Coretards have to actually delete their private keys in order to keep the confiscation FUD going. Which has always been the truth 100% of the time since 2009.

If you disagree, show me a single tutorial that explains away to delete your private keys as an acceptable way to protect your coin.

[gmaxwell]

PepeLapiu will you please pledge to leave bitcoin forever once things turn out exactly as everyone here is telling you it will?

I'll certainly never use any 110-enabled coin beyond the minimum required to dump whatever I have that it doesn't manage to make unspendable.

[PepeLapiu]

PepeLapiu will you please pledge to leave bitcoin forever once things turn out exactly as everyone here is telling you it will?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

I expect BIP110 to susceed. But regardless of BIP110 susceeding or failing, the battle against malware and against those who facilitate malware, that battle has just started. Bitcoin is worth saving. Your dickbutt.jpegs and core are not worth saving.

The coretards went too far when you kicked the hornets nest and blew open a spam filter.
You are attempting to re-define Bitcoin as "just a database" with file sharing not only enabled, but a a recongined basic use case of Bitcoin.

I'll certainly never use any 110-enabled coin beyond the minimum required to dump whatever I have that it doesn't manage to make unspendable.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass. Bitcoin will only be better off without the Epstein/Brink/Core/Blockstream corrupt class.

Now, if you really think BIP110 will fail, why are you spreading lies about BIP110 being confiscatory when it's really your fault for deleting your private keys?

Why are you refusing to answer when I ask if there are any other scenarios where deleting your private keys would cause you to lose your coin?

[DaveF]

.........
This thread is NOT to discuss knots / 110 being good or bad.
It is not to discuss what miners may or may not do.

It is just to point out the technical reasons why unless a bunch of miners do start signaling and supporting the 110 chain is going to fork off (or split off if you like that term better) and unless they do something about the difficulty, fail.

-Dave

<sigh>
Come Aug 7th +/- a few days 110 is going to fork off. [or have a chain split if you prefer that nomenclature]
Can we stick to the technical arguments at least on this thread?

Side note, not entirely sure what they were doing but someone opened a large channel to one of my LN nodes with a TX that was definitely not 110 complaint. And then they closed it a couple of hours later. Don't know if they were testing something or just chose the wrong node to open the channel with. Oddly enough it was a semi-private node that I don't advertise or discuss anywhere so I don't know why they would have done it.

-Dave

[pooya87]

What?! I wasn't around for a couple of weeks and this drama escalated into a Fork War already

Why do they hate Bitcoin Principles so much?!
Most of you already know I fully support any attempt that addresses the spam issue, but you shouldn't go back on the Principles. This is SegWit war all over again! I looked around and a lot of the arguments are similar too. Back then majority of people didn't bother with the code, they just namedropped Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. And now they just replaced it with Luke-Jr and Knots.

Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on Bitcoin with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing) are now against him because he is pushing BIP110! At least this time he has included miners signaling which is still too low (55%), BIP148 didn't even have that!

Long story short, the Principle is 95% where super-majority have to support a major change; and anything below that is a malicious attack splitting the chain, specially when it is designed to "reject" blocks that don't signal it.
And what's with the expiration date?! You either fix an exploit in the protocol or you don't. A year later, the spammers aren't going to magically decide not to come back and not use the same exploit to spam. Such attempt sounds like a "nothingburger" to me! You disrupt the network and the community this much, just to remove it all a year later going back to pre-disruption! It is not even that long, you blink and it is a year later...

[PepeLapiu]

Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on Bitcoin with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing)

Segwit gave us scaling with a block size increase to 4mB without a hard fork. And Segwit also gave us Lightning Network. I'm curious why you think Segwit constituted an attack on Bitcoin?

are now against him because he is pushing BIP110! At least this time he has included miners signaling which is still too low (55%), BIP148 didn't even have that!

I think it's a grave mistake to let the miners decide on the rules of Bitcoin. Miners are employees of the network, not the rulers. Miners are too centralized to be given the keys to Bitcoin.

BIP141 was a horrible idea because it let miners decide on the rules to apply to themselves. The decentralized pool of 90,000 nodes with no profit incentives are better equipped to change the rules and enforce the rules. BIP14q with it's 95% signalling threshold was a stupid idea. It would mean that a single miner with 5% of the hashrate could prevent the entire network from upgrading itself. And we all know about the 30% of miners who were getting ASIC boost and stood to lose a lot with Segwit.

Long story short, the Principle is 95% where super-majority have to support a major change; and anything below that is a malicious attack splitting the chain, specially when it is designed to "reject" blocks that don't signal it.

So you are telling me that the only part of bitcoin that keeps Bitcoin decentralized, the 90,000 nodes, should have no say in what upgrades we get, but the extremely centralized miners should be allowed to decide on the rules to apply to themselves? Are you drunk?

And what's with the expiration date?!

There is a very simple reason why BIP110 is temporary: unintended consequences.

With the Segwit and Taproot upgrades, also came a whole bunch of unintended consequences. Now, thanks to the unaddressed bugs in Segwit and Taproot, malware gets a 75% Segwit discount by shoving their shit in Segwit. They do this with op_if in Taproot with a depth of 7 leaves or more. There is absolutely no legitimate monetary use for op_if in Taproot with a depth of 7 leaves. It's strictly being used for malware. Had Taproot been temporary, we could have addressed the problem and fix it before making Taproot permanent.

BIP110 is not as arrogant as Segwit and Taproot by claiming there can't possibly be any unintended consequences. So we try BIP110 for a year, and if it doesn't break anything, we make it permanent. Or we fix it before making it permanent, or we ditch it if it can't be fixed. This is what a careful conservative and humble upgrade should be. In fact, I believe that BIP110 sets a precedent for all future upgrades: try it on for fit before we buy it.

You either fix an exploit in the protocol or you don't.

We will fix the exploits with BIP110. And if there are some unexpected problems, we get to correct them before we make BIP110 permanent. Understood?

In fact, I think we would not have been in the mess we are in if we had made Taproot temporary, to see if it breaks anything, and if there are any exploits that need to be fixed.

A year later, the spammers aren't going to magically decide not to come back and not use the same exploit to spam. Such attempt sounds like a "nothingburger" to me! You disrupt the network and the community this much, just to remove it all a year later going back to pre-disruption! It is not even that long, you blink and it is a year later...

We just went throught 5 years of core gaslighting us by telling us "the fees are the filter". And they used that false narrative to reject proposed anti-malware measures and actually remove existing a spam filter. And during all this time, they refered to malware as "new use cases we have today".

Bitcoin has been set on a dangerous slippery slope. Core is 100% to blame for this. BIP110 will stop the slippery slope, re-affirm Bitcoin as a monetary network, and give core the message that they have to change their ways if they want to stay relevant.

Get your popcorm, buddy. BIP110 is just the first step.

[ertil]

Why are you refusing to answer when I ask if there are any other scenarios where deleting your private keys would cause you to lose your coin?

You already got multiple answers to that question, and ignored all of that.

1. Destroying private keys is needed to achieve some properties, which would be hard to get otherwise. For example: this is how the Zcash altcoin was created, and you also got that response, so I will just quote it again:

can you find any tutorial anywhere on line where they explain how to delete your private keys after you commit your coin

It is well known at least since 2016, and it was used to create Zcash altcoin:

The instantiation of the Zcash network required the creation of a master private key. To ensure privacy, this private key must later be destroyed, otherwise counterfeit Zcash coins could be generated. To maximize the chance that no one person could obtain the private key, software was written which allowed individuals from six different locations to collaboratively generate the private key, use it to instantiate Zcash, and then destroy the computers used in the process afterwards.

And similar setup can be done on Bitcoin as well. We have 2026, so that kind of things are known for at least 10 years, if not more.

2. Even if you assume, that all private keys are known, then still: multisig exists. If you have some UTXO, which is owned by you, and someone else, then you may want one thing, and another person may want another thing. If you have some signed transaction, then you can broadcast it. But if you want to change these conditions, then you need a signature from another party, which may simply not sign what you want. Then, you are stuck with only presigned transactions, and if BIP-110 blocks it, then your coins are gone.

3. How do you want to setup some quantum puzzles, without destroying private keys? Recent example: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d7o74e-teNo

Maybe there is a technical way, to expand Bitcoin to more things, than just secp256k1. But that would require a soft-fork, where there could be simply no consensus for that. And then, what is easier: creating a Zcash-like ceremony, and making a trustless puzzle, by destroying private keys, or preparing, and activating a soft-fork, which would handle it natively?

[ABCbits]

And what's with the expiration date?! You either fix an exploit in the protocol or you don't. A year later, the spammers aren't going to magically decide not to come back and not use the same exploit to spam. Such attempt sounds like a "nothingburger" to me! You disrupt the network and the community this much, just to remove it all a year later going back to pre-disruption! It is not even that long, you blink and it is a year later...

Spammer (and anyone else who add arbitrary data to Bitcoin blockchain) don't have to wait a year. They could update their "protocol" that use different way to insert arbitrary data. It's also worth to mention SegWit had it's dedicated test network called SegNet, so issues could be found and fixed before it hit mainnet. But AFAIK such thing isn't exist for BIP 110.