Best break down of BIP110

[DaveF]

Honestly, has anyone also had the thought that Luke is a fed puppet?

The most vocal BIP110 supporters are definitely not here to make things better but to rather break Bitcoin.  That is clear.

Yup, that is because they have no BTC so they want to make sure nobody else wants to have BTC either.

60 days +/- a couple till they have their own chain and stop bothering us.

I don't see them as any different then the people who follow BSV. They do not want to understand why they are wrong so they find something that they can rationalize around.
And when we point out that it's not going to do what they say it's going to do and show them the reasons they spout gibberish.

As I said before once the fork happens I hope all the 110 threads get moved to the altcoin section where be belong with all the other scams.

-Dave

[ertil]

why wasn't BIP110 written to not result in a chain split

Because previous soft-forks like Segwit and Taproot had an alternative activation clients, where they forced it to activate, too. But so far, they also activated through miners supporting it, which brought all nodes to the same chain. And then, Luke and his community got too much confidence, that if they wrote a client, which forced previous soft-forks, and they landed on the same chain as Core, which only followed the hashrate, then they can also do the same with the next changes, and somehow, nobody will ignore it, because of some magic, and somehow the chain with less than 50% hashrate support, or even with as little as 1% or 2% hashrate support, would be anyhow safe to use.

Had Luke ever entertained the idea of splitting to a Bitcoin fork, and I missed it?

Yes, and I even linked into that: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/there-are-now-two-taproot-activation-clients-heres-why

I don't think he ever pushed a Bitcoin fork in the early years.

You missed this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210416030248/https://bitcointaproot.cc/

If it wouldn't activate through a Speedy Trial, then Knots would fork into a minority chain back then, enforcing Taproot, even if Core would reject it. And now, he somehow wants to block some rules he wanted to enforce in the past. He wanted to push Taproot faster, than it was planned, so if you hate the fact, that it was abused to push data, then you can go to Luke, and thank him for pushing for that decision. Today, Knots users hate Taproot, but at the time, when it was discussed, they wanted to activate it sooner, than planned.

[PepeLapiu]

If it wouldn't activate through a Speedy Trial, then Knots would fork into a minority chain back then, enforcing Taproot, even if Core would reject it. And now, he somehow wants to block some rules he wanted to enforce in the past. He wanted to push Taproot faster, than it was planned, so if you hate the fact, that it was abused to push data, then you can go to Luke, and thank him for pushing for that decision. Today, Knots users hate Taproot, but at the time, when it was discussed, they wanted to activate it sooner, than planned.

I was for Segwit, and I was for Taproot. I still believe Segwit and Taproot are good things, good ideas.
But they are not perfect. And since core got busy never addressing the bugs and exploits, the good stuff is being overshadowed by the bad stuff.

I also believe including tapscript in Taproot was a mistake. And it should not have been done, or at least not done so wrecklessly.

As I said before once the fork happens I hope all the 110 threads get moved to the altcoin section

Yes, that is what core really would like. They would like bitcoiners to leave them alone to control bitcoin and remove more filters. Core wants that monopoly control of nodes back again.

And shitcoiners with their retarded wizard hats and dickbutt.jpegs also would like bitcoiners to surrender bitcoin to them.

All the while you are running a thread pretending we are the ones secretly wanting to give up on bitcoin by doing a hard fork.

What I don't understand is why wasn't BIP110 written to not result in a chain split, in case of minority of hashrate voted for it?

I assume by chain split, you mean hard fork.
We are not hard forking because we are not surrendering bitcoin to the hoards of malware attackers who showed up 4-5 years ago.
A hard fork is exactly what the coretards want. They want all the bitcoiners to go away and leave you to take over bitcoin with your stoopit dickbutt.jpegs

And core would certainly love it if all the Knots nodes would just go away so they could resume running their 99% monopoly powers over the nodes.

Honestly, has anyone also had the thought that Luke is a fed puppet?

Let's say you were the fed for a minute. Would you prefer to compromise the 2-3 entities that fund the people who controlled 99% of the nodes software? Or would you prefer to compromise the only decentralized mining pool with less than 4% of the hash power and with less than 1% of the nodes until a year ago?

[gmaxwell]

You've allowed shorthand labels to totally scramble your understanding or you're hoping to abuse them to scramble the understanding of others.

"Softfork" is a shorthand way of describing the fact that changes which strictly narrow validity will not persistently fragment consensus if and only if they are followed by a majority hashrate.  It's a term that arose in comparison to "hardfork" -- changes which widen validity which will persistently fragment consensus if they're imposed by anything less than all participants (regardless of hashrate).

Your ill advised, under-tested, incompetently constructed, psychosis motivated, confiscatory, and censorious brainfart of a proposal activates regardless of hashpower and-- in fact-- it does not have any meaningful amount of hashpower and has no realistic prospect of gaining a meaningful amount of hashpower (owing primarily to the above mentioned factors).   It will result in its users being off on their own la-la-land blockchain fork.  What it will do is a fact and it doesn't matter if you call it a softfork or a hardfork or a pink flamingo spork, and while you seem to be only capable of reasoning at the level of sound bites and slogans the actual behavior of the proposal follows the cold logic of its computer code and nothing else.

The shorthand labels assume a privileged reference point that doesn't exist within the distributed system itself, the system has no central authority that says this changed or that changed and which can otherwise provide some ordering of changes to consensus logic itself.  The consensus system can't see "change" so much as it sees differences.  From the perspective of a node with 110 code at the mandatory signaling height it will perceive that the supermajority of the hashpower has hardforked away from it, because they'll be producing and the most work chain will contain blocks which it considers invalid.  This is because the necessary condition of majority hashrate support was not met, so from the 110 software's perspective there has been a hardfork.

If you disagree, well lots of people have made you offers to trade coins where you could make a tremendous profit were a 110 enabled coin widely adopted.  Of course, you just like every other 110 author and proponent been entirely unwilling to entertain any of these trades--- leaving most of us to assume that you're just another pathetic no-coiner trying to trash a system that doesn't benefit you, or some shitcoiner shill trying to hobble bitcoin relative to cryptocurrencies --- which have generally failed to add much of value, so now they're left to try and undermine the system they got their start by cloning.

There may at times be good reason for people who own and use Bitcoin to adopt a consensus change without hashrate support with full understanding of the effects on consensus, but it would only make sense if they were so thoroughly committed to their change that they were prepared to accept the consequences.  The proponents of this proposal, however, don't seem to want it for themselves much less want it enough to justify the cost.  Instead, they mislead others about the effects and shy away of putting their own assets on the line in it.  For them, the proposal seems to be entirely about narcissistic self promotion and imposing their will on others.  It's almost as though they created an intentionally bad proposal because promoting something broadly agreeable that didn't have to be imposed on others against their will wouldn't satiate their power fantasy.

Over and over the vast majority of the participants in your innumerable threads keep telling you: They don't want a bitcoin with these restrictions.

You're free to go make your own-- you can even get a start by copying ours, and if it was a better bitcoin that adventure could be quite profitable for you.  But for some reason you just won't be satisfied unless you're able to impose your will on others.

[headingnorth]

Get rid of the malware, spam, porn, monkey jpegs, etc. Why anyone thinks bitcoin needs all this useless (and harmful) garbage is beyond me.

If you want to do that crap there are millions of shitcoins that were made to cater to you coretards.

Sadly I can no longer rely on bitcoin for making timely transactions, as the network is clogged up with so much useless garbage
that it may take hours for a simple send or receive transaction to go through. That is unacceptable and will only get worse over time.

[gmaxwell]

Hi headingnorth, thanks for confirming for all of us that you're not a bitcoin user but are just a dishonest astroturfer regurgitating ill-researched years old scamcoiner complaints about bitcoin.  As any actual Bitcoiner could tell you, right now transactions paying around 1s/vb will confirm in the next block or two and often as low as 0.2s/vb get fairly quick confirmation.  This has been true for a long time-- the last significant and sustained NFT congestion floods were *years* ago--- and reached their conclusion in a predictable way as the market forces exhausted the flooders accounts.

Moreover, even 110's authors admit that 110 is not an anti "spam" proposal and will not stop spam or increase available network capacity.  The actual author of 110 wants to next move to reduce bitcoin's block size to 300kb so if you thought bitcoin was congested now, just imagine the future you're trying to sign bitcoiners up to against their will (hm, well I guess you have imagined it)...

[headingnorth]

Hi headingnorth, thanks for confirming for all of us that you're not a bitcoin user but are just a dishonest astroturfer regurgitating ill-researched years old scamcoiner complaints about bitcoin.  As any actual Bitcoiner could tell you, right now transactions paying around 1s/vb will confirm in the next block or two and often as low as 0.2s/vb get fairly quick confirmation.  This has been true for a long time-- the last significant and sustained NFT congestion floods were *years* ago--- and reached their conclusion in a predictable way as the market forces exhausted the flooders accounts.

Moreover, even 110's authors admit that 110 is not an anti "spam" proposal and will not stop spam or increase available network capacity.  The actual author of 110 wants to next move to reduce bitcoin's block size to 300kb so if you thought bitcoin was congested now, just imagine the future you're trying to sign bitcoiners up to against their will (hm, well I guess you have imagined it)...

LOL, average times in a bear market don't mean much. Of course TX times will probably be lower and relatively fast because traffic is low.

But during a bull market or periods of high traffic that is when TX times matter most. You can literally lose money waiting for your TX's to confirm.
Especially when sending to an exchange (Coinbase, Kraken, etc) which requires at least three confirmations.

[PepeLapiu]

Moreover, even 110's authors admit that 110 is not an anti "spam" proposal and will not stop spam or increase available network capacity.

You are technically correct, and practically wrong.
If temporarily returning the op_return limit to 83B at the consensus level was labeled an anti-spam measure, you would have to admit core 30 is effectively pro-spam.

What core 30 did is proclain that bitcoin is no longer money, but a file sharing network. And BIP110 is a reversal of that change and a reaffirmation that Bitcoin is money, not jpeg sharing network.

Once BIP110 is passed, core will have the choice to re-align their agenda with bitcoin as money in mind. They will have to admit they were wrong and change their approach, or gradually become irrelevant.

The hot potato is in core's lap.

The actual author of 110 wants to next move to reduce bitcoin's block size to 300kb

The author of BIP110 is anonymous. But regardless of his identity, just because Luke said once or twicebtgat he things smaller blocks would be a good idea, he fully understands that there would be no traction for it. And he is extremely unlikely to actually attempt it.

And for what it's worth, I think it would be nice to revert to 1 MB blocks until we have shown we can be responsible grown ups about bigger blocks.

so if you thought bitcoin was congested now, just imagine the future you're trying to sign bitcoiners up to against their will (hm, well I guess you have imagined it)...

Sorry pal, we are not waiting around for when core decides to blow open an other filter and force the change on their nodes against their will.

How long do you think before core decides to completely remove the ability to change the op_return filter?
Probably not any time soon.  You guys are facing enough adversity and rejection as is.

(endless coretard slop removed)

You're free to go make your own

You'd like that, wouldn't you? You would love for those who disagree with you to just hand you the keys, and let you fuck up Bitcoin with malware and your previously enjoyed 99% nodes monopoly.

Now you know that you no longer have the power you previously had. You can't have your head maintainer go on podcasts, insult bitcoiner, talk about increasing shitcoins on Bitcoin, and not lose an other 10% of the nodes.

core/blockstream/Epstein money enjoyed their little monopoly for way too long. It's over pal.

[ertil]

average times in a bear market don't mean much

You will see, if it matters or not, when instead of one block per 10 minutes, BIP-110 chain will start producing one or two blocks per day.

You can literally lose money waiting for your TX's to confirm.

You will lose more money, by not being able to transact at all, than by being outpriced by higher fee transactions. Not to mention, that BIP-110 supporters don't want to use things like anchors, which could help with that. And they don't want to use testnets, to check, what could happen, when they would start blocking certain kinds of transactions.

Especially when sending to an exchange (Coinbase, Kraken, etc) which requires at least three confirmations.

Good luck getting three confirmations on BIP-110 chain. Because it will take a while, unless they change the code.

The author of BIP110 is anonymous.

Of course Dathon Ohm is not Luke DashJr. Really, there are at least two forks planned, and at least Paul Sztorc attached his name to his proposal, even though I don't like, how he wants to activate his chain. It would be much better for Luke, if he would also have the courage to be at least a co-author of all of that.

just because Luke said once or twicebtgat he things smaller blocks would be a good idea, he fully understands that there would be no traction for it

Why not? Only Knots will support BIP-110. People, who disagree with Luke, will just ignore all of that. And when only BIP-110 supporters will be there, then there would be no reason to lift any BIP-110 restrictions, and it would be much easier, to activate next changes, because those, who disagree with them, will land on a different chain, when BIP-110 will activate, so there would be nobody, opposing any such things anymore.

And he is extremely unlikely to actually attempt it.

By having a chain, which is mainly supported by Knots, he will have a chance to make it. Waiting too long will only diminish his chances of making it happen.

I think it would be nice to revert to 1 MB blocks

All that is needed to reach it, is to simply convince miners to produce smaller blocks. The only consensus rule is that the coinbase transaction has to be there. Producing even empty blocks is compatible with BIP-110 chain. Just like Luke attacked CoiledCoin, someone may decide to do the same with his BIP-110 chain, if it would be profitable to play with it, and mining empty blocks with the message: LukeCoin now closed. Have a nice day.

and your previously enjoyed 99% nodes monopoly

There are many users, pretending to run Bitcoin Core, for privacy reasons. Or running Bitcoin Core, and activating a different software on top of it, just like Paul Sztorc did. There are also many browsers, which pretend to be Firefox on Windows, even if it is Tor Browser on MacOS in practice. It is just an User Agent string, which is trivial to change. You can have Core, Knots, or whatever, and easily change it to say, that it is Core, because it lets you hide in a bigger crowd.

As long as you don't have a proof, that a given computations are done by some other computer, then you don't know, what software is really running there. You can only guess, and estimate.

[PepeLapiu]

The author of BIP110 is anonymous.

Of course Dathon Ohm is not Luke DashJr. Really, there are at least two forks planned, and at least Paul Sztorc attached his name to his proposal, even though I don't like, how he wants to activate his chain. It would be much better for Luke, if he would also have the courage to be at least a co-author of all of that.

It would make it much easier for you if you could find the identity of Dathon Ohm. That way you could launch personal attacks and go after his character or after things he might have said or done in the past, like you do with Luke.

Instead, you just pretend to know that Dathon Ohm is Luke so you can go after Luke.

Have you noticed that I keep repeating the following over and over:

- core rejected an ordinal filter
- core top dev insulted bitcoiners who don't believe in sltcoins, publicly, twice.
- core refered to malware as "use cases we have today" to justify and enable it.
- core blew up a malware filter on top of rejecting a new one.

What i noticed is that you people never address these facts. You would rather argue on what Luke might have said in the past, and what he might do in the future

Well, based on past behavior, we need to do something about malware before core decides to blow up an other malware filter.

[ertil]

It would make it much easier for you if you could find the identity of Dathon Ohm.

Easier to do what exactly? I assume it is Luke, but if that's not the case, then it doesn't change that much. Anyway, any changes in Knots have to go through Luke, so his vision is always enforced there. And if you disagree with Luke, then you can only fork the repo, which would just split the user base.

By the way: I wonder, how Knots want to stop the old idea of putting content into coin amounts: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/encoding-art-into-the-satoshi-value-field-and-the-unfilterable-floor/2604

The harder BIP-110 supporters will push for their changes, the more things like that will be invented, or brought back from the past. And spammers wouldn't care, that storing one byte per output is inefficient, if it would make it harder to block.

[ABCbits]

--snip--
LOL, average times in a bear market don't mean much. Of course TX times will probably be lower and relatively fast because traffic is low.

But during a bull market or periods of high traffic that is when TX times matter most. You can literally lose money waiting for your TX's to confirm.
Especially when sending to an exchange (Coinbase, Kraken, etc) which requires at least three confirmations.

FWIW, https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/median_transaction_fee-price-btc.html#alltime show there's limited correlation between price chart and median TX fee. For example, previous bull that make Bitcoin price rise above $100K in 2025 doesn't increase it's median that much.

[PepeLapiu]

It would make it much easier for you if you could find the identity of Dathon Ohm.

Easier to do what exactly?

Easier to attempt to discredit us by launching personal attacks. Like you just did with Luke. Implying he's going to make himself Bitcoin king and make blocks smaller if we keep going with BIP110.

I assume it is Luke, but if that's not the case, then it doesn't change that much. Anyway, any changes in Knots have to go through Luke, so his vision is always enforced there. And if you disagree with Luke, then you can only fork the repo, which would just split the user base.

Yes, decentralization is messy. A centralized network where core decides everything and impose it on every node, that would be so much more efficient, right?

Funny how you absolutely need to have a 99% core monopoly, and a mere 25% of nodes away from that is a danger and a centralization force.

By the way: I wonder, how Knots want to stop the old idea of putting content into coin amounts: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/encoding-art-into-the-satoshi-value-field-and-the-unfilterable-floor/2604

I don't know. Let's get through BIP110 first.

The harder BIP-110 supporters will push for their changes, the more things like that will be invented, or brought back from the past. And spammers wouldn't care, that storing one byte per output is inefficient, if it would make it harder to block.

You are a nihilist and a defeatist.
ertil: "We can't stop atrackers so we might as well cater to them so we don't piss them off"