Which also means, that by fighting with the spam, which is easy to validate, it will be replaced by a different spam, where data pushes will be placed in private keys, public keys, signatures, and other places, used by real payments. And then, it is much harder to handle that, to filter it, or to do anything with it. Supporting things like BIP-110 will push spammers to these methods, where they wouldn't care that much, if they use "OP_RETURN <data>" or "<data> OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT". It will work fine for them in both cases, and they can invent many more. While for the rest of the network, it will just slow down validation, just because some purists prefer to see random data, hidden as payments, than random data, pushed in a simple way, that can be easily filtered/ignored/whatever.
Exactly. It's really just a full employment program for "spammers" (get free publicity, which entirely what their income is based on) and the censors -- whom have no reason to exist in Bitcoin but can retain their relevance, funding, and narcissistic supply by maintain an unwinnable forever war against the actions of mutually consenting third parties.
Yes, I have verified that there isn't any coin (UTXO) spending disabled by the BIP-110.
That is an outright lie and an *outrageous* one, given that it's already been refuted in this very thread. BIP-110 directly blocks most of the functionality in script by completely removing conditionals IF/THEN and by preventing you from replacing conditionals with expanded leaves by limiting the tree depth to 7. Existing timelocked coins which pay to scripts (e.g. non-trivial multisigs) are effectively destroyed by 110. I would point out that you literally cannot know what exists because scripts are hashed and classical timelocks are off chain until they're used but many people have pointed out existing usage on the network it will block and I've directly pointed out that I know of timelocks whose coins it will destroyed.
It wouldn't make sense to disable spending coins as it would be against the monetary nature of Bitcoin, of course.
Indeed, BIP110 does not make sense.
Additionally, the BIP-110 expiration after a year is the extra safety measure (just in case).
Which is not really true: The authors have expressly said they intend it to last forever on the installment plan and expand to cover more cases. The reason for the expiration is to maximize their ability to censor additional forms of transaction in the future by creating a forcing function. But even if it were true: that would just highly how extremely *pointless* the exercise is, and it still wouldn't remove the confiscatory nature: a coin delayed is a coin denied, especially since one may need to immediate use a timelock when it matures to prevent a later case from being used (e.g. exactly as lightning channel works). As one of the two dozen other discussions point out here: a recommended config for high wealth individuals with complicated multisigs is to keep a long delayed timelock that pays to a simple private key to assure that the coins can be recovered even if the other conditions become unavailable. But if you can't use the intended secure recovery before the insecure keys become active your funds may be lost.
Perhaps there could be proposals that were worth exposing users to these risks-- I think BIP110 is clearly an awful hobbling and actively destructive change to Bitcoin even absent these issues, but one could imagine problems with solutions that have some confiscatory risk that were worth it. But for that to happen the authors and proponents would have to admit outright the harm and potential harm and weigh it against the benefits. In this case the authors and proponents have actively mislead the public, lying about the harms specifically because they *know* their proposal is not worth it.
we acknowledge [...] your discontent is from having been not invited to participate in OCEAN's fund raise
By all outside appearances ocean is a failing business and a mild catastrophe for the ecosystem. Anyone who wasn't invited to 'invest' in that clusterfuck probably feels grateful for the fact: But I wouldn't know because I'm not one of them.
As anyone at ocean should know, I was asked multiple times to invest and I flatly turned it down. Which is also why I was immediately able to spot the misconduct of undisclosed ocean investors signing on this "anti-spam" marketing campaign when ocean pivoted to transaction censorship being their reason for existence after largely failing to attract participation otherwise. I can only speculate on how others might feel, but I certainly feel that I wisely dodged a huge bullet.
I waited overnight to reply to you after privately asking you to remove this falsehood. I also asked luke-jr to ask you to remove this absurd allegation-- so I guess we'll see your level of misinformation is official policy that goes right to the top of ocean or not.
But in any case, I'm always happy to see more acknowledgement that this whole drama is substantially about failing a mining pool desperately trying to generate attention and relevance for themselves and their no-coiner leadership. I had nothing but positive hopes for Ocean until they made transaction censorship a selling point, but even if I had hated them that wouldn't be a reason for anyone to see their ridiculous proposed restrictions on Bitcoin as any more desirable.
