Best break down of BIP110

[DaveF]

Everything that ertil said in the above post.

Was putting together something much less eloquent then what you did and then I saw what you put up.
Says it way better then I was writing. Thanks.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Finally, someone who replies without a blast of personal attacks and the stupid prediction that BIP110 will fail as if it were a valid reason to reject it.

Someone who addresses the OP!

It's so rare, and I almost missed it!!!

He indeed speaks 'eloquently' but doesn't seem to understand the deep issues of Bitcoin, just like most popular people in this space.

Okay. You got me on the edge of my seat right now. What are "the deep issues of Bitcoin" ??

But I would say he is better than those who support spam and garbage.

Indeed. I think his passion, humility, and honesty are palpable.

There is a part where he seemed to be concerned about minority or certain class of people ruling over consensus regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Bitcoin actually supports consensus that's determined by honest minority/decisions compared to allowing dishonest majority (or "economic majority" ) to hijack the system. So, it's OK if minority who work honestly according to good ideals eventually determine consensus. It's not going to set a dangerous precedent as long as it remains within the rules of Bitcoin.

This part has me confused. Are you saying core devs are the "dishonest majority" or that they are the "honest minority"??

I also hope he doesn't continue to use anything related to anarchy to describe ordinary people who refuse to compromise on the issue. It doesn't make sense to see people who insist on following the rules as anarchists. That part is where I lost interest in the video and didn't continue to the end

I don't believe he did that. From where I stand, Mechanic was saying that Saylor called us a bunch of "unruly anarchists" or something to that effect. I would call myself a libertarian, and I think Mechanic is a libertarian too. But I don't think he's advocating for that.

Furthermore, anarchists (which I am not) does not mean the absense of rules, or the rejection of all rules. And some variaties of anarchism doesn't even reject the notion of rulers. But we are wandering off the path here.

Nevertheless, proposal with faultless solution, that is much better than existing solution, because it can help discourage/prevent garbage data or potential spam, will definitely be supported from this end

I don't think BIP110 makes the claim of being faultless or perfect in any way.
But yeah, the malware situation on chain is so extremely bad right now, that just about any attempt at resisting it would be welcomed at this point.

What alarms me the most is not how much malware there is on chain, which is pretty alarming on it's own. What really bothers me the most is how the core devs and the core side are completely ignoring the problem, as if it were normal or acceptable, or even intended this way.

Everything that ertil said in the above post.

Was putting together something much less eloquent then what you did and then I saw what you put up.
Says it way better then I was writing. Thanks.

Actually, it's such a bad post that it's not even worth replying to. Most of the stuff he claims have been addressed in the video, spare the really ridiculous claims. Which nobody would really waste time on.

One example, and that's all I'm going to say about that absurd post:

If BIP-110 will activate, and form a minority chain, then what reason would Knots users have, to lift these restrictions? The community will split at block 961,632. Core supporters will have one chain, Knots supporters will have a different chain. Why Knots users would lift BIP-110 restrictions, instead of making new filters, just like you suggested in your own topic?

Here ertil is trying to pretend that Luke, or the Knots users have some kind of control on the consensus rules and how long the temporary fork lasts.

This is ridiculous. I can't force the network to adopt BIP110, I can't force the network to extend the temporary fork any longer, anymore than I can force the network to change the issuance to 22 million.

The rules of BIP110 will expire a year later. It's a consensus rule that nobody can change without a fork. What I think is most likely to happen is that if we see that BIP110 is beneficial, an other fork will be activated to make the rules permanent. Or fix it before we make it permanent, of totally scrap it and not do anything if we find out BIP110 had unintended consequences beyond repair. My bet, if BIP110 wins, after a year, we will find out it doesn't break anything in the monetary usage and a permanenr fork will be proposed and accepted.

ertil is presenting us as if we had the power to change consensus in an unilateral fashion. We don't have that power. If we did, BIP110 would already be activated.

It's such and absurd claim that it's not even worth addressing.

Just like the Greg Maxwell bullshit claim that if you delete your keys, you might lose your coin, and it will all be blamed on BIP110.

[ertil]

My bet, if BIP110 wins, after a year, we will find out it doesn't break anything in the monetary usage and a permanenr fork will be proposed and accepted.

See? Even you explicitly admit, that you believe, that these restrictions will never be lifted.

And of course, if BIP-110 will have 1% or 2% of hashrate, then it would be enough to produce a block or two per day. And then, it would be sufficient for BIP-110 community to claim it as "a win", to believe, that their minority is "the true Bitcoin", just like BCH supporters did, and to do further changes to their own chain.

The main question is if such miners will have the courage to constantly mine Knots chain with Core difficulty for the next 2016 blocks, at a loss, and really commit into that, or if they will switch to the majority chain, and BIP-110 will halt. Or if Luke will adjust the difficulty, to keep their chain moving.

Note that to fork the chain, a single non-BIP-110 block is all, that is needed.

If we did, BIP110 would already be activated.

Anyone can always activate any minority fork unconditionally. If nodes would decide about everything, then miners would not be needed. Which is why Proof of Work is a great tool to solve conflicts.

Most of the stuff he claims have been addressed in the video

I watched it. When there were questions about a minority chain, then there were no answers for that, other than "I don't know".

I feel like all summer forks want to just "embrace the chaos", and they don't have any plans, if something goes wrong. There is a reason, why if a given rule is supported by a small minority, it shouldn't be activated. If some developers want to disable that protections, then of course they can. But they are there, to protect from landing in a minority chain. BIP-110 implementation disabled it, and simply claimed "I don't care, if I will join a minority, I want to fork no matter what". And of course, the code won't stop you from doing stupid things, if you don't care.

I can't force the network to adopt BIP110

Do you want to suddenly say, that "mandatory signalling" is not "mandatory"?

[PepeLapiu]

My bet, if BIP110 wins, after a year, we will find out it doesn't break anything in the monetary usage and a permanenr fork will be proposed and accepted.

See? Even you explicitly admit, that you believe, that these restrictions will never be lifted.

You are so full of shit.
BIP110 will expire after a year no matter what. After that, if we decide to keep the restrictions, an other fork will be required to make them permanent.

I don't have a switch on the wall to flick Bitcoin rules on and off.
Luke doesn't have that switch either.
Mechanic explained this very well in the video.
If I had the power to flick rules on and off, don't you think I would have flicked that switch already?

And of course, if BIP-110 will have 1% or 2% of hashrate, then it would be enough to produce a block or two per day. And then, it would be sufficient for BIP-110 community to claim it as "a win", to believe, that their minority is "the true Bitcoin", just like BCH supporters did, and to do further changes to their own chain.

Your endless predictions are tiring.
You have two choices only, you are in one or the other of the following situations.

- Either you know BIP110 will 100% fail and you don't even need to engage us, you can just ignore us.

- Or you are actually panicking and you have to spreads lies of confiscation and attempt to demoralize us over it in a desperate attempt to slow down or reverse the push for BIP110.

It's one or the other. There is no in between.

As for the rest of your post, it's very clear you are either deliberately lying, or you are very poorly informed.

Core rejected an ordinal filter. Core didn't care about the UTXO set back than. But they suddenly get to worry about the UTXO set when it's time to blow upem a malware filter?

Core claims " the fees are the filter" implying that the fees should be the only filter. Which is to say they are giving themselves the green flag to invite all the malware into bitcoin. And pretend that the malware is just "use cases we have today"

Core has been marked as deprecated.

[ertil]

Either you know BIP110 will 100% fail and you don't even need to engage us, you can just ignore us.

The problem with ignoring it, is that some people are going to lose their coins, if they don't understand, what is going on. It is a similar situation, when BCH forked to its own minority chain.

Or you are actually panicking and you have to spreads lies of confiscation

What is a lie? That BIP-110 is designed to activate, even if it won't be supported by miners? If you have two chains, one in a majority, and one in a minority, then it is easy to lose your coins, by joining a losing side, moving your coin on both chains, when you don't want to, and a lot of other things. Users can very easily lose their coins, if they will just have them on some exchange, which wouldn't support BIP-110, just like some of them lost their BCH.

and attempt to demoralize us over it in a desperate attempt to slow down or reverse the push for BIP110

I only hope, that you will use BIP-110 chain, even if it will produce one or two blocks per day. Because if Knots will fork into a minority chain, then it will be fine in the long-term, BIP-110 enthusiasts will have their own coin, and they could apply any new filters they want in the future. But there are worse scenarios, for example if they would have 0% hashrate, their chain would halt, and they would still be there, pushing for more censorship.

But obviously, forking is good in a long-term, and bad in a short-term, because some users won't know, what is going on, and they could be harmed, by picking the wrong side (just like some BCH users bought their coins at BTC price, and then they were disappointed later).

[ABCbits]

FWIW, Jameson Lopp also write an article about BIP 110 on A Layman's Guide to BIP-110. It's a bit long, so you probably will need 15 to 30 minutes to read whole article.

Either you know BIP110 will 100% fail and you don't even need to engage us, you can just ignore us.

The problem with ignoring it, is that some people are going to lose their coins, if they don't understand, what is going on. It is a similar situation, when BCH forked to its own minority chain.

Now you remind me that BIP 110 mention rejecting block that doesn't signal BIP 110.

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

It may cause chain/network split, but on BIP 110, i don't see any mention of protection against replay attack. I remember BCH in very early days doesn't have replay attack protection either.




I didn't expect this user would resort to creating fake quote, i never type/write "But you are wasting your time with BIP110 if less than 1% of nodes are signaling for it ".

[PepeLapiu]

I didn't expect this user would resort to creating fake quote, i never type/write "But you are wasting your time with BIP110 if less than 1% of nodes are signaling for it ".

I didn't. Apparently #7 post in this thread said it, not you. Not sure how I ended up attributing the quote to you.

FWIW, Jameson Lopp also write an article about BIP 110 on A Layman's Guide to BIP-110. It's a bit long, so you probably will need 15 to 30 minutes to read whole article.

Lopp is 100% shitcoiner. But let's see what stoopit nonsense he is saying now.

1- High risk of chain splits.

By chain split, I assune he means hard fork. Coretards are the ones constantly bringing up the subject of hard fork. They actually believe bitcoiners are going to abandon Bitcoin and hand over the keys to malware assholes and the coretards who enable them? Loop and the coretards are dreaming.
By definition, a fork, soft or hard, is a chain split. A fork means we are forking the chain. It's in the word. But it won't be a gmgard fork unless the coretards decide to fork away to their own spam coin.

2- Confiscatory rule changes can freeze funds.

At least here Lopp is not as dishonest as Maxwell by claiming BIP110 will be responsible for you deleting your keys. There is no confiscation risk. There is no evidence that any monetary user does make use of op_if in Taproot with a depth of 7 leaves. It's an incredibly wasteful and stupid way to use Bitcoin. Unless your goal is to post malware on chain. And if you are somehow stupid enough to construct a tx forbidden by BIP110, you will only see your funds unspendable until the expiry of BIP110. But I don't believe anyone will experience this.
 
85% of all Taproot UTXOs are malware dust. I would be in favor of scrapping Taproot completely. Or at least scrap TapScript. That later one has been nothing but a hot mess which core has refused to address properly.

3- Damages Bitcoin's reputation.

This one is too funny. Loop characterizes anti-malware measures as censorship. That really shows where he stands. As if we need to allow junk jpegs on Bitcoin so save it's reputation. What a fucking idiot.

4- Subjective rule restrictions are unnecessary.

Of course if you characterize any attempt to prevent malware as censorship, any rules it carries will be portrayed as unnecessary.

5-     Divides the ecosystem.

I would propose that core blowing up a malware filter is the thing that divided the ecosystem. What? You want to do shit the whole community disagrees with, and your behavior us not diciding the community, but the response to your wreckless behavior is to blame for dividing the ecosystem?

And Lopp goes on "BIP-110 has zero miner support so far".

Now we have 1% miner support. We have to start at 0 to get anywhere. And BIP110 is an attempt to rein in poor behaving minors who fill their blocks with malware, against the community's will. Of course most of them are not happy about being reprimended by the boss.

6- Constrains future innovation.

Around 50% of blocks are filled with malware and nonsense.
Over 40% of the UTXO set is malware dust under 20¢ worth.
85% of Taproot outputs are malware spam.
And that clown wants to ignore all that and "innovate"?
No more innovations for you, coretards. Not until we have fixed Bitcoin.
You don't get to pmay with more toys until we have fixed the ones you already have.

7- Slippery slope to centralization and control.

Jesus! What a retard! Core unilaterally removed a malware filter against the will of the community. Core operates a centralized mempool policy. Core had 99% of the nodes. But any attempt away from that mobstruous monopoly is considered centralization now?

8- It actually increases rather than reduces legal and regulatory risks.

This is such a stoopit thing to claim. We have to welcome malware on Bitcoin or face legal risks?
For what it's worth, the only segment of the ecosystem that supports BIP110 is the nodes, and the nodes are the only part or Bitcoin that is still decentralized. The two very centralized powers (core and the large miner pools) are mostly against it. Yet we have to surrender to the the will of the centralized powers to remain decentralized? What's Lopp smokin'?

9- Cost of node operation is already constrained by the block size limit.

Thanx for the tip, Einstein. We knew that already. That's what the block war was all about.
Bcashers said "nodes are not important, nodes can suffer any block size increase without consequences"
Coretards are saying "nodes are not important, nodes can suffer any file the world wants to throw at them without consequences"

The bcashers lost. The coretards will too.

[ertil]

It may cause chain/network split

Not "may", but "will". The only scenario, when there would be no split, is if BIP-110 would get a hashrate majority, and would keep rejecting non-BIP-110 blocks. Only then all clients will land on the same chain, and follow the same blocks. Judging by the current signalling, it is unlikely. For BIP-110 to fail, there is no need to even have any "rejection client", all that is needed, is ignoring it, because a single non-BIP-110 block will fork them, and push all Knots clients to a different chain.

Which is why previous soft-forks could succeed or fail. When they succeeded, while also meeting Knots' rules, some people like Luke got a false confidence, that they can simply write any new code, force it to activate, and people would always follow. However, BIP-110 is much more controversial than Segwit or Taproot, because none of them for example tried to block future P2PK outputs (which BIP-110 does, because P2PK is larger than P2WSH or P2TR by at least one byte, if the public key is compressed). So, we will have a chance to see, what happens if Core and old Knots clients will follow the hashrate, and ignore BIP-110, while new Knots clients will enforce it.

I remember BCH in very early days doesn't have replay attack protection either.

Well, in case of BIP-110, all that is needed, is making a transaction, which is blocked by that, to split the coins properly. Which means for example using P2PK, even with compressed key. But I guess they consider Satoshi to be a spammer, if they want to block output types he used. This is something, which will be invalid in BIP-110 chain, so it is probably not a payment, but just some spam: https://mempool.space/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16

[PepeLapiu]

It may cause chain/network split

Not "may", but "will".

Than you got nothing to worry about. You don't need to spread lies about BIP110 anymore and you don't need to respond to my posts anymore. You can just wait an other 3 months and laugh at me.

[ertil]

You don't need to spread lies about BIP110 anymore

What is a lie? That BIP-110 blocks future P2PK outputs, and marks it as a spam, even though Satoshi used it? Or that it will always fork, if it won't reach the majority?

By chain split, I assune he means hard fork.

You still don't know the difference between a minority soft-fork and a hard-fork?

A minority soft-fork is when you split, but the chain can flip between two versions, if hashrate on both sides is around 50% each. A hard-fork is when you always split, and never land on the same chain, no matter what. The words "soft" and "hard" comes from times, where splits were assumed to be temporary, and where people wanted to land on the same chain, eventually.

However, if the split is unequal, for example 10% to 90%, or 1% to 99%, and there is no majority to enforce a new soft-fork, then that chain becomes a minority soft-fork, where in theory it can replace the stronger one, but in practice it becomes harder and harder with each and every block. And the longer the split is, the more users would be harmed, if the hashrate would ever flip, which is why minority soft-forks are often turned into hard-forks, to avoid it. Of course it is optional, and people with 10% or 1% of hashrate can still try to mine it, but the less power they have, the more time it would take them, to produce 2016 blocks, and lower their difficulty. Which is why such users usually switch to a hard-fork instead, to have anything usable. But of course they can wait, and produce one or two blocks per day or per week, if they are willing to burn a lot of electricity on coins, which they couldn't easily sell for the same price, as the stronger chain has.

And then, it looks funny, when people compare producing more than 21 million coins, which is a hard-fork, with BIP-110, which is a minority soft-fork. In one case, there is no way to go back. In another case, it becomes gradually harder for a minority to catch up, but it is mathematically possible (and then, the longer the split, the more users are affected; if they don't know what to do, then they will be screwed; again: BIP-110 supporters don't care to even test it properly in any testnet, to find out).

But it won't be a gmgard fork unless the coretards decide to fork away to their own spam coin.

All that is needed, is just ignoring new rules. Existing blocks, produced by existing miners, which don't signal for BIP-110, are enough to split the chain. One such block, and Knots will be forked since then.

There is no confiscation risk.

Blocking one user in a 2-of-2 multisig, while not blocking another user is called by BIP-110 supporters as "not a confiscation". Alice and Bob have a shared UTXO. Alice's transaction is blocked by BIP-110, while Bob's transaction is not. But BIP-110 supporters pretend, that no coins are lost by anyone, just because they "feel like it", and they didn't even launch any proper testnet, to check these edge cases.

you will only see your funds unspendable until the expiry of BIP110

Which doesn't matter, if another party will sweep them by that time, by using a second spending option, which wouldn't be blocked. But BIP-110 supporters don't care about multisigs, so they didn't check these edge cases either.

Of course if you characterize any attempt to prevent malware as censorship, any rules it carries will be portrayed as unnecessary.

Knots rejected other ways of dealing with the spam. They don't want to create a more optimized client, which would process only non-spammy transactions. They want to force their rules on everyone, and they think it is the only solution, if all nodes will do that in exactly the same way. Which is why they will fork into a minority chain, but none of that is necessary to stop the spam. But they don't care about using a coin, which is used by majority, they prefer forking to a different chain instead.

the only segment of the ecosystem that supports BIP110 is the nodes

Which is not enough, to solve a double-spending problem. If there are two transactions, sending the same coins to two different places, then which node will decide, which transaction is valid, and which is not, if you want to ignore the miners? There is a reason, why Proof of Work is useful for solving conflicts. Otherwise, Bitcoin wouldn't need mining at all, if only nodes would matter.

[DaveF]

There is a reason, why Proof of Work is useful for solving conflicts. Otherwise, Bitcoin wouldn't need mining at all, if only nodes would matter.

The only thing that matters is miners. Well, 95% of what matters is miners. The other 5% is exchanges and other services along with nodes. With most of that percentage being exchanges and services.

However, if the split is unequal, for example 10% to 90%, or 1% to 99%, and there is no majority to enforce a new soft-fork, then that chain becomes a minority soft-fork, where in theory it can replace the stronger one, but in practice it becomes harder and harder with each and every block. And the longer the split is, the more users would be harmed, if the hashrate would ever flip, which is why minority soft-forks are often turned into hard-forks, to avoid it. Of course it is optional, and people with 10% or 1% of hashrate can still try to mine it, but the less power they have, the more time it would take them, to produce 2016 blocks, and lower their difficulty. Which is why such users usually switch to a hard-fork instead, to have anything usable. But of course they can wait, and produce one or two blocks per day or per week, if they are willing to burn a lot of electricity on coins, which they couldn't easily sell for the same price, as the stronger chain has.

Once one chain / fork is 6 blocks ahead it's over for the other one.
That is why most exchanges and other places have the 6 block withdraw / confirm setup.
The math done years ago shows that after 6 blocks the odds of the other chain catching up naturally is so close to zero that it's not a financial concern.

-Dave

[ertil]

Of course, it is even in the whitepaper in the Chapter 11th called "Calculations":

Code:

#include <math.h>
double AttackerSuccessProbability(double q, int z)
{
    double p = 1.0 - q;
    double lambda = z * (q / p);
    double sum = 1.0;
    int i, k;
    for (k = 0; k <= z; k++)
    {
        double poisson = exp(-lambda);
        for (i = 1; i <= k; i++)
            poisson *= lambda / i;
        sum -= poisson * (1 - pow(q / p, z - k));
    }
    return sum;
}

You can test Satoshi's code in any online C/C++ compiler you want, and you should get the same results, as he did: https://www.programiz.com/cpp-programming/online-compiler/

Running some results, we can see the probability drop off exponentially with z.

Code:

q=0.1
z=0 P=1.0000000
z=1 P=0.2045873
z=2 P=0.0509779
z=3 P=0.0131722
z=4 P=0.0034552
z=5 P=0.0009137
z=6 P=0.0002428
z=7 P=0.0000647
z=8 P=0.0000173
z=9 P=0.0000046
z=10 P=0.0000012

Code:

q=0.3
z=0 P=1.0000000
z=5 P=0.1773523
z=10 P=0.0416605
z=15 P=0.0101008
z=20 P=0.0024804
z=25 P=0.0006132
z=30 P=0.0001522
z=35 P=0.0000379
z=40 P=0.0000095
z=45 P=0.0000024
z=50 P=0.0000006

Solving for P less than 0.1%...

Code:

P < 0.001
q=0.10 z=5
q=0.15 z=8
q=0.20 z=11
q=0.25 z=15
q=0.30 z=24
q=0.35 z=41
q=0.40 z=89
q=0.45 z=340

To be absolutely safe, 100 confirmations are needed for miners, because then they will be able to spend recently mined coins. But for regular users, something like 5-6 confirmations should be enough (as you can see, z=5 is the Satoshi's solution from his code, which gives less than 0.1% probability of catching up, when a minority chain has 10% hashrate support).

[PepeLapiu]

Just about all you can do is throw BIP110 fail predictions at the wall and hope that some of it will stick.
You can't actually address the BIP itself and what it does.

- It will fail
- You will hard fork to a useless worthless shitcoin
- No miner will signal for it
- It will lead to censorship.
- Blah-blah-bla....

You can't address the BIP itself too much.
Because every time you do, you expose yourself as the shitcoiners you really are.

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

Yeah right. I've been on this forum for almost 10 years, and I moved from Canada to El Salvador, and I still have no BTC at all, and I'm a no-coiner? Really?

No you fled Canada to avoid paying your debts. You fled Canada because you could not hack it here.

[PrivacyG]

Best break down of BIP110 is the mental break down you will get when it fails.

[DaveF]

Best break down of BIP110 is the mental break down you will get when it fails.

:-)

So as of now on August 8 2026 we should hit block 961,631 at that point knots nodes will reject any block not signaling. Even if it meets the 110 spec.

Important to note that clients that are signaling for 110 but are still based on core will (depending on what mods the people running them made) will still follow the longest chain no matter what.

At that point it's just waiting to see how many blocks the knots clients fall behind the main chain. And as pointed out above after 6 blocks or so the odds of ever catching up are just about zero.

That is all that matters. Then we can all go back to enjoying the rest of the summer.


As for addressing the BIP. What of it. It does what it says it does, block a bunch of what are valid transactions that some people don't like. But most people who mine don't seem to want it. And since it's always been 1 cpu that is mining 1 vote that is all that matters. Yes, now we are running massive ASICs and point to pools since it's worth paying 1% or 2% to have someone take care of running the pool for you. If you don't like the pool you are mining at you switch. But almost nobody seems to want to mine at Ocean.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

As for addressing the BIP. What of it. It does what it says it does, block a bunch of what are valid transactions that some people don't like.

This is where you keep hanging yourself with your own rope and exposing yourself as the shitcoin malware lover that you really are.

Bitcoin is a permissionless censorship resistant monetary network. Emphasis on the word "monetary".

But you remove words and change words of definitions to suite your agenda. You don't say that Bitcoin is amonetary network, you just say it's a permissionless or censorship resistant network without ever defining what kind of network. A network created and optimized tfor what kind of useage?

And you don't even acknowledge that there is a spam/malware/jpeg problem. One day you all decide you can't define spam. The next day you claim we can't stop spam, when you just said you can't define what spam is.

And you basically claim that spam doesn't exist, that malware doesn't exist. It's all "transactions I don't like". Yes buddy, you actually believe jpegs and other malware actually belong on Bitcoin.

You can't accept BIP110 as a solution to any problem because you don't see any problem. You are the problem.

[DaveF]

As for addressing the BIP. What of it. It does what it says it does, block a bunch of what are valid transactions that some people don't like.

This is where you keep hanging yourself with your own rope and exposing yourself as the shitcoin malware lover that you really are.

Bitcoin is a permissionless censorship resistant monetary network. Emphasis on the word "monetary".

But you remove words and change words of definitions to suite your agenda. You don't say that Bitcoin is amonetary network, you just say it's a permissionless or censorship resistant network without ever defining what kind of network. A network created and optimized tfor what kind of useage?

And you don't even acknowledge that there is a spam/malware/jpeg problem. One day you all decide you can't define spam. The next day you claim we can't stop spam, when you just said you can't define what spam is.

And you basically claim that spam doesn't exist, that malware doesn't exist. It's all "transactions I don't like". Yes buddy, you actually believe jpegs and other malware actually belong on Bitcoin.

You can't accept BIP110 as a solution to any problem because you don't see any problem. You are the problem.

Except from what it looks like, 98%+ of the people mining don't seem to have a problem with it either. Which makes you the problem, a very small insignificant minority that wants to disrupt what once again according to the blocks mined 98%+ want. That is not a me problem, that is a you problem since you are in that less then 2%. Get some miners, and start hashing otherwise you don't matter.

9,362 blocks as of this post until knots stops accepting what appears to be what an overwhelming amount of people want.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Here is how you know you are wasting you time, because the person you are talking to doesn't think there is a problem. Because THEY ARE THE PROBLEM:

- If they refer to malware as "transactions I don't like" which is slightly better than asking "What is spam anyways?"

- If they claim we can't stop malware on bitcoin so we might as well remove filters and any anti-malware measure we might have.

- If they completely avoid or endorse that core has rejected an ordinal filter without a care for the UTXO set, but also Core removed a malware filter in order to protect the UTXO set, so they claim.

- If they constantly refer to Bitcoin as block space free market, or if they call bitcoin a "network" or a "database" without ever defining what kind of network or database Bitcoin is optimized for.

- If most of their argument is about BIP110 failing or hard forking. They can't debate what BIP110 actually does because that would force them to reveal their real agenda.

- If they claim they want Bitcoin as money, but they reject every anti-malware measure.

Don't try to show them the problem and it's solution. Because they are the problem.

[ertil]

You can't accept BIP110 as a solution to any problem because you don't see any problem.

I can see the problem, and I can also see solutions, which won't put people in a forked chain, like BIP-110 does.

My solution is to basically process the subset of the mainnet traffic. In this way, you handle only payments, and you ignore non-payments completely. Then, you still land on the same chain, with the same coins, but only optimize your own client. However, obviously, Knots is not interested in any of that, because they prefer forking to a minority chain, more than making actual optimizations, that could be beneficial for users.

I guess people are falling into this trap, because they think, that each present and future node implementation is forced to process everything that happens on-chain, forever. And that users from 2109 will still have to process and download blocks and transactions from 2009, only to find their own coins, which were created in the 22nd century, and didn't exist earlier at all. Processing 100 years of history, to handle coins, which existed only in some recent blocks, is highly inefficient method, which doesn't scale. Are you afraid, that 210,000 or more blocks will be reorged? Do you think, that someone from 2109 will still assume, that there could be a chain reorganization, which would change some block, mined in 2009? There is a reason, why Satoshi counted only block headers in the whitepaper.

One day you all decide you can't define spam.

And you know, why it is the case? Because blocking existing ways of spamming will encourage spammers to adapt, and adjust their methods. And then, instead of handling a spam, which is very simple to handle, like OP_RETURN is, you push them to use worse methods, which are harder to detect, harder to process, and harder to fight with.

If you don't understand it, then try to learn, why OP_RETURN was introduced in the first place. What problem it solved, and what people used, where there was no OP_RETURN. Then, maybe you will get it, how people, who switched to OP_RETURN, made it easier to handle the UTXO set, to increase transaction processing speed, and even allowed you to split things between "monetary" and "non-monetary" transactions, where otherwise, it would be much harder to even count it properly, and measure the scale of the problem.

The next day you claim we can't stop spam, when you just said you can't define what spam is.

If you will block for example OP_RETURN, then spammers will switch to worse methods. When someone pushes some data on-chain, and it is all behind OP_RETURN, then it is easy to define it as a spam, easy to filter, easy to block, and easy to handle it in whatever way you want. But if it is blocked, then people simply adjust. And then, you can no longer filter things by OP_RETURN, because they are encoded with OP_CHECKSIG, and with a lot of other methods. And then, you no longer know, what is spammy, and what is not, if all of that traffic is heavily mixed with regular payments.

Imagine for a while, that all spammers would always use OP_RETURN, and nothing else, to push their data. Then, it would be easy to detect, easy to handle, and when you use some optimized client, you can easily filter it, ignore it, remove it from your UTXO set, without worrying about the correctness of the future blocks, and so on. But no, let's make it worse. Let's break these assumptions, optimizations, and all of that effort, which was done to speed up the Initial Blockchain Download, by not processing things, where transaction creators want to send coins to unspendable or hard-to-spend locations.

And then, instead of handling all existing spam in one shot, you have to guess, where it is, and which form it took. You have to scan every OP_CHECKSIG, try to find ASCII strings there, try to check vanity addresses, try to check signatures, and handle thousands of ways, in which spam could be pushed. Which means, that you simply screwed all optimized clients, who previously could look at some transaction, see OP_RETURN, and ignore it instantly. Now, they need much more effort, to reach the same goal, just because you want to play Tom and Jerry's on-chain, for absolutely no reason.

So, to sum up: a spam could be stopped in a simple way, if everyone would just use OP_RETURN. By using BIP-110, you make the situation worse, because it is no longer that simple. And I am not against the idea of stopping the spam: I am against forking into a minority chain, screwing all optimized clients, and implementing a cure, which is worse than the disease. BIP-110 just distracts people from making actual optimizations and improvements, which could filter the spam properly, without any fork wars, without splitting the community, and without all of that drama.

Also, guess what: all people, who will want to split their coins between BIP-110 chain, and non-BIP-110 chain, will push real transactions on-chain, for completely no reason. They would have no reason to do that, if BIP-110 wouldn't split. The only reason why they will, is because you decided to run Tom and Jerry show on-chain, and giving all spammers a free press, which they otherwise wouldn't get at all, and their data pushes would be completely ignored, so people would stop using them.