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

[PepeLapiu]

NOT YOUR KEYS, NOT YOUR COIN

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.

No, you have not answered the question, you just deflect from answering the question.
I ask if you know of any other case where deleting your keys would cause you to lose your coin. The right answer is that in every other single case, as far as Bitcoin is concerned, if you lose or delete your keys, you lose your coin. Hence the phrase "Not your keys, not your coin". Ever heard of it?

An other case where deleting your keys would cause you to lose your coin is if you run core 30 spamware. In some specific cases, the retarded core devs decided it would be a good idea to delete your keys when migrating your wallet. This caused some users to actually lose funds.

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:

You are not answering the question. I ask if there as other scenarios where losing your keys would cause you to lose your coin. And you reply that you need to delete your keys to protect your coin. That is not only retarded, it's deflecting from answering the question.

Furthermore, I don't give a fuck about shitcoins. I don't look to shitcoins for guidance and reference. Go get yourself some zcash shitcoin and leave Bitcoin alone.

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.

Still deflecting from answering the question.
Can you think of any other scenario, outside of BIP110, where deleting your keys would cause you to lose your coin?

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

Again, deflecting the question. You are trying to provide instances where you think destroying your keys makes sense. I didn't ask if there are any other instances where you can destroy your keys and not lose your coin. I ask if there are other instances where losing your keys will cause you to lose your coin.

Here is how Bitcoin works: you hold the keys, you control the coin. You lose your keys, you lose your coin.

You can play stupid games and delete your keys as some retarded scheme to do whatever you want. But play stupid games, and win stupid prizes. You don't get to delete your keys, than demand that we keep malware around just to satisfy your stupidity.

NOT YOUR KEYS, NOT YOUR COIN

[ertil]

The right answer is that in every other single case, as far as Bitcoin is concerned, if you lose or delete your keys, you lose your coin.

If you have a signed transaction, then you can broadcast it. If it is timelocked, then you can do that after a given timelock. If BIP-110 blocks your transaction, then you lose the coins. And in second layer protocols, it is normal to have a multisig, where you cannot change the conditions, without getting a signature from another party. It is interesting, that you consider a multisig to be not relevant somehow.

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.

It is interesting, that you ignored it completely. Zcash is one thing, but exactly the same setup can be done on Bitcoin. And people did it, for example by using things like 2P-ECDSA: https://web.archive.org/web/20230610040939/https://duo.com/labs/tech-notes/2p-ecdsa-explained

Here is how Bitcoin works: you hold the keys, you control the coin. You lose your keys, you lose your coin.

Why do you think, that users who have a valid, signed transaction, should lose their coins?

But play stupid games, and win stupid prizes.

Multisig is stupid? Joining many users under a single UTXO is stupid? You want to handle all users separately, on-chain, where every user would have one or more UTXO, and there would be no second layers?

BIP-110 does nothing to protect multisig users from losing their coins, if they are affected.

[PepeLapiu]

If you have a signed transaction, then you can broadcast it. If it is timelocked, then you can do that after a given timelock. If BIP-110 blocks your transaction, then you lose the coins.

Bullshit.
BIP110 will make your coin temporarily unspendable. But only if you do a time lock with op_if in Taproot with 7 leaves depth. And only if both the commit and redeem happen during the one year of BIP110. And there is no reason for any monetary user to use op_if in Taproot with 7 leaves depth.

If you want BIP110 to "confiscate" your coin, you have to be dumb enough to delete your private keys while you locked up your coin.

You'd also have to be using a wallet that is so negligent, they don't bother to enforce the rules for their users. And you'd also have to have been living under a rock and be completely unaware of the controversy and fork.

And in second layer protocols, it is normal to have a multisig, where you cannot change the conditions, without getting a signature from another party. It is interesting, that you consider a multisig to be not relevant somehow.

You are full of shit. BIP110 doesn't block multisig.

Why do you think, that users who have a valid, signed transaction, should lose their coins?

I didn't make the rules. Not your keys, not your coin. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Delete your keys, and lose your coin. Since 2009.

BIP-110 does nothing to protect multisig users from losing their coins, if they are affected.

You are a time waster. BIP110 doesn't affect multidigs unless you use them to post malware on chain.

[pooya87]

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?

BIP148 is not SegWit.

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.

Well, that's how Bitcoin was designed. 1 CPU 1 Vote is literally giving the power to decide to those who own computing power aka hashrate aka the miners.

BIP14q with it's 95% signalling threshold was a stupid idea.

The high percentage has worked very well so far in all the soft-forks we have had over the past 14-15 years. From BIP16 (P2SH) in 2012-ish all the way to BIPs 341 &2&3 (Taproot).

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?

Running a node has virtually no cost compared to mining; and one entity can start a large number of them if they are motivated enough. Miners are not the same because you need actual hashrate that can only happen with actual hardware and investment. Letting only miners signal may not perfect, but alternative which is ignoring miners and giving more power to nodes is not more decentralization, instead it is more centralization.

Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for Bitcoin.

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

I get my black clothes out because if it happens, that would be the death of bitcoin. To split the chain half and half! We could even see the first successful 51% attack pulled off soon after as well.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Friendly reminder to the discussion that talking with Pepe is a complete waste of time. He won't even accept a bet on the certainty of BIP110 being accepted as a soft fork, despite being offered 20-to-1 odds.

History will likely repeat in September. And the only losers will be you, the jpeg loving coretards.

Then why don't you go on a bet with me? If you are certain about your numbers and your knowledge on Bitcoin history, and how "5% of the nodes forced miners in a non-favorable direction for them", and think that history will repeat in September, and "losers like me" will bend over this soft fork, why don't you go on a bet with me? Especially when I'm giving you insane odds, 20:1. We can use escrow, if you don't feel confident that I may not pay you back.

You're all arrogance and endless threads, but when it comes to putting your money where this arrogance is, there's only silence.

[DaveF]

Friendly reminder to the discussion that talking with Pepe is a complete waste of time. He won't even accept a bet on the certainty of BIP110 being accepted as a soft fork, despite being offered 20-to-1 odds.

History will likely repeat in September. And the only losers will be you, the jpeg loving coretards.

Then why don't you go on a bet with me? If you are certain about your numbers and your knowledge on Bitcoin history, and how "5% of the nodes forced miners in a non-favorable direction for them", and think that history will repeat in September, and "losers like me" will bend over this soft fork, why don't you go on a bet with me? Especially when I'm giving you insane odds, 20:1. We can use escrow, if you don't feel confident that I may not pay you back.

You're all arrogance and endless threads, but when it comes to putting your money where this arrogance is, there's only silence.

He can't bet you he probably does not even have $1

Beyond that we kind of have to keep showing why 110 is bad for the next couple of months till it finally fails. Otherwise there is always the potential for someone who does not know to loose their BTC by doing something stupid or getting hit with some form of replay attack. At this rate by the 8th or 9th of August at the latest 110 will be it's own chain many blocks behind the main chain and it becomes irreverent.

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for Bitcoin.

It activates with 0%:  As OP point out after block 961,632 all of the nodes with the 110 code gain a new consensus rule that all blocks must have the 110 signal set. The authors don't call this "activation" because their censorship rules aren't active at that point, but the consensus rules have still changed and not even in some inconsequential way-- it'll produce a chain split between 110 users and non-users which is the thing your comment is concerned with.

The activation of the rest is triggered by that mandatory flag-- so it's guaranteed (assuming the 110 chain makes it that far!) within the 110 chain as a product of that consensus rule.  Essentially they're creating a "at gunpoint" sham election, presumably so they can say "oh look the hashpower 'voted' to enable this censorship, so we're not culpable for anyone we fucked over with it".   It seems like AI slop logic, but I guess that's their problem rather than any of ours.

In any case I'm not sure that the 0% behavior is much worse in terms of your concern than 55%--  if they are just a few percent (or fraction of a percent as they are now) then their self-immolation should be largely harmless to others.   For it to be disruptive its necessary that they have a lot of hashpower and that there is a less than strong-supermajority criteria.  Both 0% and 55% are not strong supermajorities, so both bad.

But I thought it was worth mentioning simply because there do seem to be people confused on the facts-- it doesn't help that the proposals authors are consistently deceptive in their descriptions and the proponents often lack the background to see through it.

[PepeLapiu]

(coretard slop removed)

You lose what little credibility you still have, if any, when you refer to BIP110 as censorship.

Some people grow wiser, some people just rot before their time.

[gmaxwell]

BIP110 blocks an enormous swath of Bitcoin's functionality, all the way down to basic programing structures such as if/else and sufficiently large multisigs.  It blocks my own purely financial transactions.  It censors uses of Bitcoin that its authors and proponents disapprove of plus a lot more as collateral damage.  Calling it censorship correctly describes its motivations and especially its mechanisms.

If its proponents were not so dishonest they might argue "yes, it blocks applications and uses of the bitcoin currency and attempts to kick out some users of Bitcoin but we think it's worthwhile" -- most would disagree, but at least it would be an defensible position.

You don't have to care about censorship, and you're clearly not alone in not caring about it-- Heck, Ocean's chief marketing officer was recently ranting about the US's first amendment being celebrated. He's entitled to have that opinion.



But *I* care about civil liberties like the freedom to transact without the approval of third parties, even though knotzis like you and much of the staff at Ocean seemingly don't.  I think these freedoms are worth considerable cost.

You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to waste our time whining about your indifference. We know.   I don't constantly reiterate that calling NFT bullshit "spam" is technically false:  spam is an unsolicited commercial advertisement, sent at effectively no cost to an unwilling and usually ungrateful recipient.  While the NFT traffic is sent by a consenting party, to a consenting party, mined by a consenting miner -- at considerable cost, paid with the bitcoin currency being spent in the transaction.  It might well be a stupid use of Bitcoin, I certainly think it is-- but if being stupid precluded someone from using Bitcoin you wouldn't be here at all.    It's simply misleading to call it spam.  But whatever: everyone here knows what you're taking about.  Actual spam in Bitcoin is rare because it's been addressed by wallets not showing messages from the network.

Speaking of Ocean Marketing, -- seems they've finally decided to check if BIP110 would harm users, a little late, and a little pointless considering how many times they've been explicitly shown it will and been directly notified. But no worries, they've applied their usual competence in managing to create a poll with two identical "No" options.   I guess it's just following the spirit of the 110 mandatory signaling: You can choose whatever choice you want, as long as its the choice the Committee chose for you.



More than anything else, I think 110 is an exercise in creating an authoritarian government for bitcoin but pretending its something else because the creators imagine that it will respond to *their* will and therefore totally safe to have decide what transactions are good and which are bad.  It misses the principal achievement of Bitcoin: That no one, not any group, body, or even a popular vote should have a say in the private transactions of third parties,  and it misses that the potential harm from control is the influence it wields against the non-consenting itself, and not merely some result of the "wrong" people being in control of it.  It's not that I don't want Luke-jr and his delusional no/few coiner buddies deciding which transactions are good or not, although I don't, it's that I don't want anyone deciding that including myself.

[PepeLapiu]

Over 40% of the UTXO set is malware dust.
Over 85% of Taproot outputs are malware dust.
Over 50% of the block content is malware.

We are not going to tolerate your sorry ass gas lighting us into the stoopit "the fees are the filter" bullshit anymore.

Instead of addressing the obvious problem with malware, core got busu rejecting filters, removing 11 year running filters, and rebranding malware as "use cases we have today"

Core removed a filter without any community support. And even after all the backlash and the mass migration away from core, they still don't budge and they still don't re-instate the op_return malware filter.

Core doesn't work for bitcoiners. Core hasn't worked for bitcoiners in a long time. Just follow the corporate money and find out who the core devs are getting their paycheck from. Small clue: not bitcoiners.

Sorry Greg, you don't get to play with your useless "smart contracts" and your "inheritance schemes" where you get to delete your keys and blame BIP110 for your own stupidity.

None of the bullshit you talk about is required for Bitcoin to work as money.

Read the first 3 lines of this message again, and ask yourself why there is not a word about the growing malware onchain, on the mailing list and on here, and on Reddit.

[gmaxwell]

You're not a bitcoiner PepeLapiu, you're a nocoiner! people have offered you extremely lucrative 110 coin for non-110 coin trades (lucrative if you believe 110 encumbered coins have value, at least) and always you're just forced to demure. so it's pretty rich hearing that rant.

Sorry Greg, you don't get to play with your useless "smart contracts" and your "inheritance schemes" [...] None of the bullshit you talk about is required for Bitcoin to work as money.

I'm a bitcoin user and one for a lot longer than almost anyone in these discussions.  I think core's only error was taking way too long to fix the serious issue with blocking stuff that was actively getting mined and instead letting themselves get pushed around by abusive and mentally ill people with their weirdo cancel culture obsessions about irrelevant transactions.  When they finally fixed block propagation it greatly increased my confidence.

Had they gone on much longer they absolutely would be facing a fork of the repository by people disappointed by how effective luke-jr's abuse had been at forcing a clearly broken status quo.

[PepeLapiu]

I'm a bitcoin user

That's subject to disagreement. User, abuser, rhymes a lot.

and one for a lot longer than almost anyone in these discussions.

Yes, I know. You've hearned quite a name in the space, Greg.
What happened to you that you have fallen so far down that you now promote malware on Bitcoin and spew lies?

[ABCbits]

Over 40% of the UTXO set is malware dust.
Over 85% of Taproot outputs are malware dust.
Over 50% of the block content is malware.

Do you meaning something like https://mempool.space/tx/85f1bf57386ff71f9e7cde9f6fc347065fa34e95389712fdc2b2fcb205273d8f?showDetails=true that all anti-virus or malware would detect?

P.S. More info about this dangerous malware can be seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EICAR_test_file.

[ertil]

Read the first 3 lines of this message again, and ask yourself why there is not a word about the growing malware onchain, on the mailing list and on here, and on Reddit.

Claiming, that there were no discussions about BIP-110 in these places, can be easily falsified.

Mailing list: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8
Here: this topic is about it, as well as many others
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1tmh5i3/comment/onp531s/

By the way: on-chain content is always displayed in hex form by Bitcoin Core. So, even if there are images, binary blobs, or whatever, then still: it is never executed. Also, even if you have a full node, then still: to see a particular transaction, you need to have some of your inputs or outputs involved. You won't see random transactions, made by random people, if you won't explicitly request them in the client. They are processed, but never displayed to the end user, who doesn't want to see it.

[PepeLapiu]

Over 40% of the UTXO set is malware dust.
Over 85% of Taproot outputs are malware dust.
Over 50% of the block content is malware.

Do you meaning something like https://mempool.space/tx/85f1bf57386ff71f9e7cde9f6fc347065fa34e95389712fdc2b2fcb205273d8f?showDetails=true that all anti-virus or malware would detect?

Nope. Malware for your I, and malware for Bitcoin are two different things.
I'm no longer talking about spam. Because it's too mild of a word. It puts the on chain malware on par with annoying advertising and scam emails.

Bitcoin malware is much more offensive and dangerous than that. When you send me an email with a dickbutt.jpeg, I just click the delete button and all is fine.

But on Bitcoin when you send a dickbutt.jpeg you are effectively putting a burden on all the 90,000 nodes by forcing them to host and share your stoopit dickbutt.jpeg, until the end of time.

This is not mere annoying spam, it's malware. If we don't face the problem that shit will kill bitcoin with the death of a thousand cuts.