Best break down of BIP110

[PepeLapiu]

I know I got a short fuse and I get pretty passionate about it all.
But if you want to understand my/our side of the current spam war, I can't think of a better place to start than this video:

https://youtu.be/MN2IyhyMZBU

BitcoinMechanic aka @Grassfedbitcoin is the most eloquant advocate on my side.

[Karl_3000]

This will only be another spam thread of Bitcoin Knot.

People are not supporting your BIP110.

Just fork and have a shit coin.

[ABCbits]

Good luck getting people to watching video with duration 1:32:19.

People are not supporting your BIP101.

FYI, BIP 101 is one of proposal about raising block size that isn't accepted. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki.

[Karl_3000]

FYI, BIP 101 is one of proposal about raising block size that isn't accepted. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki.

Thank you, it was a mistake, I was taking about BIP110 which is what this thread is for not BIP101.

[ertil]

Just fork and have a shit coin.

Don't worry, Bitcoin Knots is programmed to activate BIP-110 unconditionally. It doesn't matter, if they will reach 0%, 1%, 2%, or anything below 50%. It will always activate, so they will always fork, as long as they will be in a minority. A single non-BIP-110 block is all that is needed, to split them to their own network.

By the way: forks like BIP-110, or what Paul Sztorc is going to create, will only lead to pushing more on-chain data, that there would otherwise be. Just because people will want to split their coins, to sell their forkcoins, they will start making transactions on both chains, and they will hope, that the miners from minority chains will confirm them (because only then, selling will be successful, and only then these people will split; if they will have 0% hashrate instead, then they will be stuck, and we will still need to deal with them).

I guess if they will have 1% or 2%, then it will be a positive scenario: they need some miners, producing some blocks, to split. Only then they can switch to the coin they want, and leave us alone. Now I just wonder, if their miners will have the courage to produce one or two blocks per day, or if they will stop, because of being unprofitable. Because a lot of blocks, worth a lot of money, is needed, to really bring down their difficulty to produce one block per 10 minutes. Unless they will change the code, and adjust it, like BCH did.

[PepeLapiu]

Good luck getting people to watching video with duration 1:32:19.

Read books much?
FYI the most successful and most watched podcast is Joe Rogan with typically 3 hour long videos.
Stick to your 30 second sound bites, but you won't learn much.

This will only be another spam thread of Bitcoin Knot.

I installed an "Ignore" button under my profile to the left of this message. If you want to file a complaint, click the top right button that looks like an X and your complaint will be forwarded to the proper department.

You behavior really baffles me. I see plenty of threads I'm not interested in. You know what I do? I don't click on them, I don't read them, and I don't reply to them.
I don't really think you have your panties in a bunch about anyone forcing you to read my posts and forcing you to reply to my posts. It's more likely you are getting your panties in a bunch over the possibility that others might want to read what I post.

People are not supporting your BIP110.

I got news for you. BIP148 brought us Segwit with less than 5% of the nodes running it. We got twice that much already and counting.

Just fork and have a shit coin.

That's what you want. You want monetary bitcoiners to give up and hand the keys to malware grifters. Sorry, not gonna happen.

[Karl_3000]

That's what you want. You want monetary bitcoiners to give up and hand the keys to malware grifters. Sorry, not gonna happen.

But you are wasting your time with BIP110 if less than 1% of nodes are signaling for it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583901.msg66758855#msg66758855

[DaveF]

Not my work but: https://x.com/i/spaces/1kJzDDwnmrWKv?s=20
A bit rambling but a good description of why 110 is going to die in early August.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

You are wasting your time with BIP110 if less than 1% of nodes are signaling for it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583901.msg66758855#msg66758855

Your info is wrong. Between 8% and 11% of the nodes are running BIP110, depending on who's counting. It's not even disputed by anyone. The coretards acknowledge the growing thrend, only they claim it's all Sybil nodes and fakes.

Not my work but: https://x.com/i/spaces/1kJzDDwnmrWKv?s=20
A bit rambling but a good description of why 110 is going to die in early August.

This is all a waste of time and it's about 90% of what the coretards do. Instead of addressing the merits of BIP110, you mostly throw out predictions of what will happen and you base your entire opinion on those predictions.

I'm pretty sure BIP110 will succeed, I hope it succeeds. But even if I were 100% convinced that it would fail, I would still run BIP110. Because it's the right thing to do to save bitcoin from those malware assholes and the core devs who enable them.

Removing malware attackers from Bitcoin is the right thing to do. Bitcoin will die of a slow death if we can't turn this ship around.

If BIP110 fails (but it won't) there is still no cost to me. And I will run the next anti-malware fork, and I will keep running my malware filters on my Knots node.

Feel free to follow the coretard crowd. I'm doing what's right.

[Satofan44]

Removing malware attackers from Bitcoin is the right thing to do. Bitcoin will die of a slow death if we can't turn this ship around.

You can't remove anybody from Bitcoin, that is not what Bitcoin is about -- maybe you should go back to some shitcoin like ETH as you clearly like centralized methods, or perhaps you want to get an invite to the private CSAM respository by luke-jr which will be established as a result of his manual filtering committee?  

If BIP110 fails (but it won't) there is still no cost to me. And I will run the next anti-malware fork, and I will keep running my malware filters on my Knots node.

Feel free to follow the coretard crowd. I'm doing what's right.

There is not a single fork, BIP or any kind of bullshit takeover that is going to succeed. You can dedicate and waste your whole life on an useless idea like that yet you will not achieve anything. Eventually you will return back to the meaningless dust that you spawned from having lived a meaningless life and not having accomplished anything at all. The only reason why you are here is because someone has a liberal infested brain and does not how to manage a simple forum, otherwise you would have no platform. Nobody wants you aside from a few CSAM-obsessed freaks, literally nobody cares about this false threat in the real world and all the data that we have on this subject shows that there is nothing problematic about it right now and most likely there is never going to be anything problematic of it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who seriously supports a central filtering committee run by luke-jr only does so because he or she secretly hopes that they can view CSAM footage regularly under a protected environment. If someone looks and smells like a fucking pedophile, the most likely reason is because they are one. The scammer luke-jr will become irrelevant soon just like Roger Ver, Craig Wright and many others have done. He is an useless tool and Bitcoin would have been better off if he had never joined it to begin with.

[PepeLapiu]

You can't remove anybody from Bitcoin, that is not what Bitcoin is about

Bitcoin is peer-to-peer permissionless money. Not permissionless jpegs, not peer-to-peer anything you can think of.

Furthermore, when faced with the idea of malware and spam on Bitcoin, Satoshi had this to say:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Please note, Satoshi was not stupid enough to ask if the malware paid his miner fees. He didn't ask if it's consensus valid malware. He didn't say that the fees are the only filter acceptable. And he sure as fuck didn't stop at the idea that we can't prevent malware on chain.

There are already over a dozen malware filters running in core, minus the one they decided to nuke.

We need more filters and more anti-malware measures, not less.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who seriously supports a central filtering committee run by luke-jr

You are very confused. There are already a dozen malware filters in core. Core also maintains their own centralized "relay and mempool policy". They decide for you what you can put in your mempool, and what you can relay to other nodes. Some filters can be adjusted if you can play with the code or of you know how to access, read, and edit .config files.

Knots has a vastly different. The filters are in one easy to find tab and they are all configurable with a few mouse clicks. You can turn them off completely, crank them all the way up, or turn them off completely.

It's core that has a centralized mempool policy, not Knots.

[ertil]

The filters are in one easy to find tab and they are all configurable with a few mouse clicks.

BIP-110 is not "configurable". It is based on consensus rules, which is far worse, than using only standardness rules.

By the way: it is interesting, that Knots decided, that the risk of forking into a minority chain is better, than just validating a subset of the existing network. Because if your goal is to remove the spam, then BIP-110 won't do that on all blocks, which were already produced. It won't improve Initial Blockchain Download in any way, and it won't make validation easier, if OP_RETURN will be replaced with OP_CHECKSIG, OP_SHA256, and other things. Spammers will adjust, and validating a new spam will be harder, than validating the old spam.

If they would really want to make things "configurable", then they would still follow the heaviest chain of Proof of Work, but they would just process only a subset of it. But instead, they decided, that it is better to try to force new rules on everyone, rather than making a lighter node, which would skip the spam, and encourage users to use it, by improving its performance.

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 true. Existing nodes are processing everything since 2009, but as the chain will grow further, then it won't scale at some point. And then, I would be really surprised, if people in 2109 will still start their nodes from 2009, and process 100 years of history, only to handle some transactions, which were created in the 22nd century. Reorging the chain beyond some point would be so disruptive, that it would lead to a different coin, if you would see for example 210,000 or more blocks being reorged. Currently, miners can spend coins after 100 blocks, and a chain reorg bigger than 288 blocks would break some pruned nodes, by forcing them to re-download missing data. Even a chain reorg bigger than 100 blocks could lead to a different coin.

I still wonder, why pruning is not implemented in the way Satoshi described it. Because the idea is to prune only spent things, and leave everything else, where it is. But instead, nodes don't store blocks or transactions from 2009, even if they are unspent, while also they store N last blocks, even if some coins are spent, and could be safely discarded. Which is completely different from Satoshi's model, where spent things are pruned, and unspent things are kept (because they are needed to validate next blocks). And if it would be implemented in this way, then pruned nodes could always refer to all unspent coins, which is the main thing users care about. Only coin owners have to keep the history of their spent coins, for everyone else, knowing what is unspent, is sufficient to process new things, which is the only thing they care about.