Maintainers of Bitcoin Core software are lagging behind!

[spooderman]

oh I agree that BIP110 does not have the needed support at this time and I am glad for it.

the disturbing part is that they would even try to do something like this just to "block spam" when it would not even be effective.

That's said in the BIP itself. Why are so many of you intent on misrepresenting its motivation? It does not stop spam, despite having a chilling effect on people who use Bitcoin for arbitrary data storage.

Happy to argue about how effective it is at what it *claims* to do if you can ever bring yourself to contend with that instead of straw man representations of it.

[gmaxwell]

That's said in the BIP itself. Why are so many of you intent on misrepresenting its motivation? It does not stop spam, despite having a chilling effect on people who use Bitcoin for arbitrary data storage.

Gee, I dunno Bitcoin Mechanic -- maybe it's because you've implied it was intended to address "spam" and that its opponents were somehow pro-spam?

Someone posts "Just being intentional about blocking spam is really all I need to see" and you reply:
"It's only gotten more brazen and better funded over the last few years of neglect.  RDTS sends it back to where it belongs."

(RT) "The pro-spam crowd REALLY does not like the idea of the plebs renting hash. Interesting."

"psst - did you Know if you run BIP-110 it stops Citrea being able to use YOUR mempool TODAY - which is all they need btw."

"You can't make anyone run BIP 444. All its success would mean would be that Bitcoin is capable of preserving the monetary use case for its chain." (or are you no longer defining "spam" as usage that isn't exclusively monetary?)
 
"'No one has come up with a good reason why we need BIP-110' - Here you go: [link to graphic showing the number of UTXO entries over time]."

"I can just define a subset of Bitcoiners that are anti-spam and say there's consensus among us on BIP110 and that the rest of you aren't even Bitcoiners?"

In the threads on BCT where the only other ~two BIP110 proponents are going on constantly about "spam", you've been silent on correcting the position.

And you've stood by silently on twitter while other people you regularly retweet have said bip110 was about 'fighting spam' over and over again on an effectively daily basis.  ("Do you really think Knots/BIP-110 is an attack on Bitcoin? A bigger one than Ordinals even? Wanting to stop spam and grift on Bitcoin is a «bigger attack» on Bitcoin than spammers and grifters")... including your boss (and the real author of proposed change):

"Activate RDTS and filter spam"

"if you oppose RDTS you will be forking off for no purpose other than to defend spam and worse"

"Wrong. Spam is destroying Bitcoin, and not healthy in any way. RDTS fixes the incentives."

"CSAM and spam are the _only_ things RDTS is hostile to, and defending them is the _only_ reason to oppose RDTS"

...although he also retreats to the it isn't about spam frequently whenever people point out how totally ineffective it would be against non-monetary transactions, just as you now do.

This is a classic motte and bailey.  Plenty of Bitcoiners have been concerned about 'spam' heck it sounds like something Bitcoin should worry about even to people who have never used Bitcoin, so you leverage that to sell them on your fork.

But when it's pointed out that spam isn't the significant problem many people think it is or that 110 is simply useless for spam (and anything else many people are concerned about) you retreat to the "it's not a about spam" (or "RDTS isn't meant to stop spam, moron" to use the language of the CEO of Ocean, your employer).  You shouldn't leverage concern about spam including by staying silent when the argument is used in favor of your change and you certainly you shouldn't get to argue it both ways yourself.  If you're concerned with people misrepresenting its motivation perhaps you should start with Ocean's (virtual) office first.

The deceptive techniques used to promote 110 by people so closely connected to it should be disqualifying on their own.

[zeuner]

Obviously, there are quite different opinions on whether BIP-110 would be good to adopt, and also obviously, no one wants to end up on a minority chain.

One might however have doubts whether those involved in mining and thus have an effect on BIP-110 adoption are in fact representative of the community that would be affected by its adoption.

A much more meaningful portrayal of community interest in the topic could be achieved by extending the circle of people who have influence on such decisions. If exchanges would allow to explicitly buy coins from signalling blocks (or not), a larger part of the community could decide. Miners would have an incentive to activate the settings that conform to what the rest of the community wants.

[gmaxwell]

Coins from signaling blocks don't make any sense I think-- they're just all equally fungible bitcoins even if they were mined by morons.

Instead what you want is an exchange to implement a chain-split-token.  The idea is that you can deposit bitcoin and then split it to get 1 non-110 bitcoin, and 1 110 bitcoin.  The two of which you can trade with other assets like (unsplit bitcoin).  Or you can obtain through trade 1 of each and merge them and withdraw at any time.  After the split happens, if it happens, you can just directly withdraw 110-coins and non-110 coins on their respective chains.

This was done successfully for s2x and bch.

As it stands, exchanges have not yet found any evidence that anyone wants to purchase 110 coins so the effort to enable this trade is not justified.

The advocates of 110 don't want 110 for themselves, they want it to impose on other people by force and that is its only value to them.

[MoparMiningLLC]

Coins from signaling blocks don't make any sense I think-- they're just all equally fungible bitcoins even if they were mined by morons.

Instead what you want is an exchange to implement a chain-split-token.  The idea is that you can deposit bitcoin and then split it to get 1 non-110 bitcoin, and 1 110 bitcoin.  The two of which you can trade with other assets like (unsplit bitcoin).  Or you can obtain through trade 1 of each and merge them and withdraw at any time.  After the split happens, if it happens, you can just directly withdraw 110-coins and non-110 coins on their respective chains.

This was done successfully for s2x and bch.

As it stands, exchanges have not yet found any evidence that anyone wants to purchase 110 coins so the effort to enable this trade is not justified.

The advocates of 110 don't want 110 for themselves, they want it to impose on other people by force and that is its only value to them.

if no exchanges support the fork - it is going to make the alt very worthless or no? those that hold bitcoin will be stuck with a fork they cant offload for more bitcoin - I know I dont want any of the fork'd coins.

[ABCbits]

As it stands, exchanges have not yet found any evidence that anyone wants to purchase 110 coins so the effort to enable this trade is not justified.

FWIW, the best "evidence" i found is 16% of money bet "yes" on this prediction market https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-be-enforced-on-bitcoin-by-sept-1-2026-1770282509. But the "yes" criteria doesn't really makes sense if you actually compare it with BIP 110 itself.

[PrivacyG]

Healthy competition between clients is good for the ecosystem.

Competition can not be healthy when a group forms all of a sudden pretending to take Bitcoin over and make the rules for everyone else.  That is toxicity and I do not know which dimension this would ever be seen with good eyes by anyone other than their own delusional members of the group.

[gmaxwell]

Competition can not be healthy when a group forms all of a sudden pretending to take Bitcoin over and make the rules for everyone else.  That is toxicity and I do not know which dimension this would ever be seen with good eyes by anyone other than their own delusional members of the group.

Hey now, it's not that bad, they just want to make Luke-jr king of Bitcoin: https://x.com/SatoshiSound/status/2073487446600298941  (I'd link to luke and his employees retweeting this but X hides the content on those links).

And that will be totally problem free since owning to the fact that he's a no-coiner they figure if he doesn't do what they want they can just assassinatesorry, depose him.  Presumably they think that as a relative no-coiner like themselves he'll be easy to manipulate.  On that latter point I agree.

But if your game plan is to depose the king, why not be a little proactive and not have one in the first place?  It's as if these folks have no access to the history of human politics and haven't even the slightest clue as to why Bitcoin was created.  Here is a hint:  Democracies are much better than monarchies for preserving personal freedom and autonomy.  But they still suck at it because they're ultimately about telling third parties what they can and can't do even if they do it in a better way.  Bitcoin was created because technology allows for autonomous money-- money that avoids the third party dependence entirely.

We don't know how to organize all of human affairs around this level of freedom but Bitcoin showed us how for money.  The fact that other people use it in ways I don't like isn't a bug, it's a feature-- in fact it is the feature, the entire reason for Bitcoin's existence.  Anyone who wants money ruled by a monarchy can have it-- it already existed before Bitcoin.  Anyone who wants money ruled by a democracy can have it-- it also already existed before Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is for people who want money that isn't ruled by anyone, where you and you alone decide how you use your bitcoins.

Some people came to bitcoin for reasons other than its reason for existence. For example, Luke-jr came to bitcoin because he had a fixation on the "tonal number system" and he thought he could make a modified version of Bitcoin that used tonal numbers as a way to try to pressure people to use tonal.  So the fact that he doesn't give a hoot about why Bitcoin exists is nothing new and is no surprise, he's just migrated on from a quaint fixation with an eccentric number system to a different windmill that serves some different interests that will support him on his fruitless quest.

Bitcoin has always existed in a world with a lot of people that didn't understand or appreciate its reason for existing and we never let that stop us before and we won't let it now.

Edit: User uint512_t made a response to this message which has subsequently been deleted, I think it may be helpful to the public process to preserve it:

all this utter BS is not really a coherent critique of anything other than revealing your personal grudges

most ppl know about his tonal number system thing,  that has anything to do with what's going on currently? people will be pushed for using tonal number if they use Knots? acc. to you everyone is retarded and only you're smart but like everyone else you also live in your bubble.

You're simply acting tribal, if one person supporting Knots and/or BIP110 says or believes in "x" then all of their tribe must believe in the same and I need to see whoever reposted it to prove a point. You just love typing your endless useless slop.
May be touch grass or see a doctor for your mental issues.

I don't think anyone in these discussions is stupid, much less retarded. If I did I wouldn't bother responding to them.

There is nothing 'wrong' with the tonal crusade-- it was quaint, eccentric, a little thought provoking, and ultimately harmless.  The quest that has replaced it is obviously not.  But both are products of a person who didn't come to Bitcoin for Freedom Money.  It's okay that people come to Bitcoin for different reasons but the Why of Bitcoin matters particularly when someone is proposing to change it.

[Satofan44]

Obviously, there are quite different opinions on whether BIP-110 would be good to adopt, and also obviously, no one wants to end up on a minority chain.

Obviously there are quite different opinions on whether the Earth is flat or not, it is just that one side is retarded and factually wrong but hey "opinions" matter, right?  

One might however have doubts whether those involved in mining and thus have an effect on BIP-110 adoption are in fact representative of the community that would be affected by its adoption.

There are more representative than most people who do not run nodes, do not hold any significant amount of coins, who are easily swayed by false information online and who write complete nonsense. Someone who has billions of $ to lose here, is more representative than someone who bought $100 worth of Bitcoin because some random told them to and now they consider themselves a Bitcoin expert. Deal with it.

A much more meaningful portrayal of community interest in the topic could be achieved by extending the circle of people who have influence on such decisions. If exchanges would allow to explicitly buy coins from signalling blocks (or not), a larger part of the community could decide. Miners would have an incentive to activate the settings that conform to what the rest of the community wants.

No.

The advocates of 110 don't want 110 for themselves, they want it to impose on other people by force and that is its only value to them.

Exactly, that is what many of the voices that are more friendly towards attacking, CSAM-obsessed and CSAM-archiving groups like luke-jr and friends fail to get. They do not want to "solve" anything, they do not want to "fork off" and do their own thing, they want to force this on everyone else -- which makes this an attack, always, regardless of the % of support. The very idea of forcing anything on someone else here is always an attack -- you can try to persuade me, but if you fail and then try to force something then that is always going to be an attack.

Healthy competition between clients is good for the ecosystem.

Competition can not be healthy when a group forms all of a sudden pretending to take Bitcoin over and make the rules for everyone else.  That is toxicity and I do not know which dimension this would ever be seen with good eyes by anyone other than their own delusional members of the group.

Healthy competition and forceful behavior are incompatible. Where there is one, the other is not present.

[gmaxwell]

That's said in the BIP itself. Why are so many of you intent on misrepresenting its motivation? It does not stop spam, despite having a chilling effect on people who use Bitcoin for arbitrary data storage.

Gee, I dunno Bitcoin Mechanic -- maybe it's because you've implied it was intended to address "spam" and that its opponents were somehow pro-spam?
[...]
The deceptive techniques used to promote 110 by people so closely connected to it should be disqualifying on their own.

As a sequel, here are some examples from Dathon Ohm (the cguida sock account that larps as the "author" of luke-jr's bip110 proposal):

"BIP-110 is the safest possible response to the spam problem"

in response to people arguing that 110 opens up the door to government imposed transaction censorship:
"The flaw in your thinking is a conflation of spam filtration with censorship."

"BIP-110 disincentivizes all data spam."

"BIP-110 will severely impact 'spam/scam incentives'."

"We can try script whitelists next. But again, there is no reason to expect this to become necessary. Once BIP-110 activates, Core will filter spam"

"BIP-110 defines certain formats as spam."

"The only risk of a chainsplit is from miners who explicitly support spam."

"If everyone is against spam, then BIP-110 should be a shoo-in."

"There will be no justification for popular node implementations to fail to filter this spam once BIP-110 goes live."

"Spam should be immediately filtered in policy. This worked wonderfully from 2010-2022. BIP-110 will restore that reality.

"BIP-110 will make spam filtering much more effective"

"No one is actually against the restrictions BIP-110 proposes, except people who think spam is a good thing"  (gosh, the lying from these guys is truly audacious)

"There is no valid rationale to oppose BIP-110, except if you explicitly support more spam on Bitcoin. You should support BIP-110 if you truly believe spam on Bitcoin is an urgent issue in need of being addressed immediately. BIP-110 is our best shot at mitigating the threat."

"Spam will get worse and worse with no action, yet you reject BIP-110 while proposing no better solutions."

"I will abandon the softfork only if a better solution to data spam is found before the deadline."

"Reject the spammers and scammers who corrupt and distract. [...] Run a BIP-110 node"

... I guess the named "author" of BIP-110 is one of those bad actor morons that Luke-jr who designed the thing has mentioned were trying to falsely convince others that it was about spam.