The new Ver's Bcash: Knots/BIP110 or core?

[PepeLapiu]

So for the last year or so, I have been bombarded by claims that the Knots and BIP110 camp are the new Roger Ver cult and we are eventually going to end up with a similar failed shitcoin as Bcash.

Let's see what Ver believed in. Thought I think he was misguided and pig headed, I believe Roger's heart was in the right place. I really believe that he felt Bitcoin would need to increase block size to survive as money.

But Roger believed that nodes are not all that important, and that nodes could adapt to the increased chain size as tech gets cheaper and storage cost decreases.

The small blockers believed that Bitcoin nodes must remain small, cheap, and manageable for Bircoin to survive. The small blockers though keeping the nodes soveign and easy to operate a primordial aspect for Bitcoin to remain decentralized. And that scaling can not be done with block size increase.

Today, the core side doesn't really value node sovreignty and node power. Every single fork Core attempted as a Miner Activated Soft Fork. Core doesn't really want to deal with the nodes. They want to deal with the hyper centralized pools.
And core manages a centralized "mempool and relay policy" they impose on all their nodes. They decide for you what you should add to your mempool and relay to other nodes.
Core's position is that it will reduce the work load of your Nide if you just go along with what the large corporate pools want to put in their blocks.

To me, that is an absurd idea. Like saying it will reduce the police man's work load if he just goes along with what speed drivers want to drive at.

The Knots side, on the other hand, believe that node sovereignty and easy of running a node are primordial. That the core 30 changes inflict a moral/legal/social risk that is completely unwaranted. Nodes don't need more moral risks, more legal risks, more social risks. Nobody wants to risk being forced to host any and all picture anyone wants to post on chain, no matter how disgusting these files may be.

The only thing that might remotely make Knots/110 similar to Bcash, is that we are forking the network. But Bcasg was a HARD fork, and as much as coretards want to deny it, BIP110 is a SOFT fork.

The difference is that BIP110 will split the chain while remaining inside the network, until the legacy chain is abandoned. No new coin will be generated. No air drop of new coin will occur.

I think it's obvious. Coretards are the new Roger Ver cult.

[ertil]

Nobody wants to risk being forced to host any and all picture anyone wants to post on chain, no matter how disgusting these files may be.

Who is forcing you to do so? For each and every block or transaction, any given node can always say "I don't have it". For example: if you ask about the block 0000000000052ab478b6f8a2dcaba26a189361c9030b5d56c524cb7bddf00d0c, or transaction ID c3ca178c765213777397b162c366ca50e82bab1528c819bd7b77952bbb6a8611, then all nodes will say "I don't have it".

But Bcasg was a HARD fork, and as much as coretards want to deny it, BIP110 is a SOFT fork.

A minority soft-fork, to be specific. Which means, that in theory, it will always have a chance to catch up with the stronger chain. But in practice, it will be exponentially harder and harder, exactly as described by Satoshi in the whitepaper, and confirmed by his code, where you can compute, how likely it is, for any given hashrate.

No new coin will be generated.

Only if you reach more than 50% hashrate. Otherwise, your node will reject the stronger chain, and switch into a minority soft-fork.

No air drop of new coin will occur.

When Knots will switch to a BIP-110 chain, and all other clients will keep accepting and producing non-BIP-110 blocks, then each user will have an option to spend coins from two different chains.

Anyway, you keep accusing people of lying, but you never explained, how BIP-110 will not split the chain, by having a minority hashrate. If you will have 0% hashrate on BIP-110 side, then your chain will halt. If you will have 1% or 2%, or something like that, then you will get one or two blocks per day, until the difficulty will adjust. And because you will reject the first non-BIP-110 block, and everything on top of it, then you will leave the stronger chain, as soon as any old miner will produce any such block.

we are eventually going to end up with a similar failed shitcoin as Bcash

Yes, because by activating BIP-110, without having 50% of the network, you will actively keep rejecting the stronger chain, which decided to not upgrade, and to not follow your new rules. You can call your chain "the true Bitcoin", just like BCH community did, but it won't change anything. All Core, and old Knots clients will simply follow the hashrate, no matter what you do.

And then, you will have a choice: to accept the slow BIP-110 chain, which will produce one or two blocks per day, or to change your code, to fix it (which usually means hard-fork, unless you know, how to lower the difficulty in a soft-fork way).

[PepeLapiu]

(coretard slop removed)

You can't help it, can you? You stoopit fucking coretards have to derail every single discussion with your BIP110 failure predictions. You don't discuss the problem that BIP110 attempts to fix, you don't discuss the merits of BIP110, because every time you do, you expose yourself as the retarded shitcoiner dickbutt.jpeg loving fiat minded grifters you all are.

So you endlessly theorise about how BIP110 will fail. You have absolutely no substance to offer. The OP had nothing to say about the outcome of BIP110 or the outcome of Segwit. But all you are able to do is theorize and predict in a million different ways how BIP110 will fail and result in monetary bitcoiners going off on our own and leaving you the keys to bitcoin. Which is exactly what you really want, isn't it?

You remind me of the two retards in the following video:

https://youtu.be/0amyoV0XCns

Both of them for over and hour kept going on and on about how they have predicted that BIP110 will fail and create a new shitcoin. They didn't have a single thing to say about the problem going on right now. Everything core is doing is just fine by them. The chain being filled with 50% malware is fine by them. They don't even discuss what BIP110 actually does.

Fucking retarded shitcoiners!

[ertil]

You don't discuss the problem that BIP110 attempts to fix

If the solution is worse than the problem, then it should fail, before people can focus on fixing it properly.

you don't discuss the merits of BIP110

Because the only thing it does, is making blocking transactions easier, without doing anything positive to solve the spam problem.

After BIP-110:

1. There will still be a lot of spam, it will just take a worse form, which is harder to manage, harder to block, harder to optimize, and harder to skip in any way.
2. Some transactions will be blocked, which will break censorship resistance, as different users will want to block more and more things in the future, by introducing next BIPs.

Which means, that those, who really want to solve the spam problem, have to simply wait for BIP-110 to fail, before doing other things, which could actually be helpful.

You have absolutely no substance to offer.

You rejected the idea of handling a subset of the mainnet traffic. Which means you don't want to solve the problem. You still think, that all nodes will be forever forced to store everything, which is not the case. The idea of running a full node, by billions of people, is flawed, even Satoshi didn't want to have more than 100k nodes, and wanted to provide simplified ways of interacting with the network for regular users.

Which is exactly what you really want, isn't it?

If bad ideas, like BIP-110, are stopping us from pushing better ideas further, then yes, we should patiently wait for them to fail.

They don't even discuss what BIP110 actually does.

It blocks output types, which were used by Satoshi. I guess they are not payments, and BIP-110 considers Satoshi to be a spammer in that case.

[gmaxwell]

Nobody wants to risk being forced to host any and all picture anyone wants to post on chain,

No one is forced to host any pictures at all.

(0) Unlike Fiat, no one is forced to use Bitcoin. They're free to not use it, they are free to even make a new cryptocurrency based on it which behaves differently.

(1) Even among Bitcoin users, no one is forced to run a node-- bitcoin can be used without doing so.  The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not.

(2) Bitcoin Core provides no random access to transaction data on the blockchain, and has rejected prior proposals to do so specifically to avoid acting as any kind of file server.  The only access to blockchain data it provides is access to entire blocks at a time to enable other nodes to access the chain.  As a result none of the NFT stuff works by accessing data from the nodes of third parties.  NFT users use NFT websites that run their own NFT indexing software that decodes concealed NFT data from transactions, rather than fetching it from the Bitcoin p2p network.  If anyone did begin using this access to abuse the p2p network as a file server there are mechanisms that could be deployed to stop it without degrading Bitcoin's functionality, but so far the existing behavior has been sufficient.

(3) If you choose to run a node you don't need to host any historical chain-- enable pruning.  Your security remains the same but you will not store or serve any historical witness data.  Ironically 110 undermines this freedom because it makes spam in 'fake' outputs relatively more attractive compare to witness data and fake outputs cannot be removed by pruning. However, the non-prunable data is never sent over the network and all the data that is stored is encrypted on disk.

(4) Even if you choose to not prune for your own reasons you can still run in LIMITED mode, which to the world looks like you're pruning and won't 'host' or serve any historical blockchain data for third parties.

(5) Even if you don't prune or run limited mode, your node is free to decline to respond to any requests about any transactions or blocks as you wish it to do so.  If many nodes did that there would probably need to be improvements to handle it better, but in any case that isn't your problem as a node operator.

(6) Bitcoin Core has no "picture" functionality. It is unable to store, retrieve, or display pictures at all, in any case quite explicitly and intentionally.  However, the nature of digital information is such that essentially any information can be encoded to look like any other information-- this is particularly true for data that is expected to contain random numbers, cryptographic keys, or encrypted data like transactions.  If you're willing to classify information as 'pictures' because someone could steganographically encoded some picture data in it then literally anything and everything could be pictures, which is absurd and stupid.  Reliable legal advice in the US going back over a decade has been that any culpability for such encoded data false squarely on the encoding party.  Failing that, all the earlier points apply.  And ultimately this indisputable physical reality about the nature of information is a fact that can't be undone by anything-- 110 nor *any* other proposal can make it impossible or even difficult to secretly encode other information into transactions.  If there were a problem here 110 would not be a solution to it.

So 110 doesn't prevent parties from secretly encoding undesirable information in transactions, but fortunately that doesn't need to be prevented.  Unfortunately 110 does a lot of collateral damage to bitcoin: gutting its smart contracting functionality which is critical to avoiding reliance on centralized third party services, it kills big multisig policies and renders traditional timelocks unsafe -- security tools that would have prevented the theft of Luke-jr's bitcoins which would have avoided 110 ever being created (because he never would have created Ocean and ocean never would have created this fake issue to create a wedge for miners to 'vote' on), -- it even outlaws the very script that Satoshi used for his own coins it's so liberal with what it destroys.

By subjecting transactions to censorship determined by mob outrage 110 undermines the core philosophy of Bitcoin: Money that is cryptographically secured against the wishes and whims of others.  And its proponents, including you, have consistently misrepresented its costs and benefits at every step of the way and consistently told vile lies about people raising concerns, having the effect of chilling fair public discussion.  I have no doubt that there are only a dozen to one people opposing 110 vs supporting it here instead of a hundred to one in part because no one want's to be falsely called a pedo and pervert by you and your Ocean mining buddies as you've done so visibly, and because ultimately they don't need to: All that's required for 110 to crash and burn, given its fraction of a percent hashpower, is for people to sit back and watch.

[DaveF]

You can't help it, can you? You stoopit fucking coretards have to derail every single discussion with your BIP110 failure predictions. You don't discuss the problem that BIP110 attempts to fix, you don't discuss the merits of BIP110.

Because as has been pointed out many many many times to you. 110 does not fix anything.

Now, if you came in trying to debate if certain things should not be allowed in the chain. That's fine. That could be argued. There are people like me on one side who things so long as it fits in a block and people are willing to pay for it then it's fine. And we have you on the other side who things that if it's not Alice paying Bob then it does not belong in the chain.

But knots / 110 does not even slow down the ability of people to put arbitrary data in the chain. There are dozens of ways to do it. This stops one.

For the argument of we just talk about the fact that it's going to fail.
These next 2 statements are facts:

As of this post it's about 59 days until knots stops accepting blocks that do not signal 110. https://jlopp.github.io/knotzi-death-march/
And as of this post less then 1% of the blocks are signaling support: https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling

So unless something really changes it is going to fail. And all you do is keep talking about spam and insulting people. If you really cared you would be working on some possible solution that might actually have a chance to so what you want to happen.

I don't know what it would be, and I don't know if it's even possible. But what I do know, is that knots / 110 is not it.

And, with the price of BTC having fallen to where it is, it's going to be even harder to get support. Miners are going to want to get every last sat that they can by including every TX that they can.

Some people might see it as such a small number vs the block reward that it does not matter. Other miners have to look at it as yeah, we are getting $195,000 +/- a bit for the block and chopping $800+ off of that is some low paid employees salary for the week so include everything.

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

Other miners have to look at it as yeah, we are getting $195,000 +/- a bit for the block and chopping $800+ off of that is some low paid employees salary for the week so include everything.

It's not theoretical either-- today and for years miners modify stock Bitcoin Core to include *more* than it would otherwise.

It's also ironic in that at the times when the NFT traffic was a problem it was bringing in enormous floods of money for miners-- with over a quarter of a billion dollars paid to miners in fees for NFTs alone.  Those large amounts really make your point.  But right now, the amounts aren't large because NFT floods aren't currently an issue and haven't been for several years-- because the existing countermeasure of market action on fees running out the flooders budget was successful.

[Ucy]

The other was actually a failed attempt by the oligarchs/elites to hijack Bitcoin. I actually had some pity for Roger Ver but the warning signs were too overwhelming for me to risk being emotional. And it seems that every time I decided to be ruthless on the issue, something touchy like "baby are dying or people are starving" cropped up. I eventually made up my mind never to look back regardless.


Interestingly the current issue seems to be big blockers in different guise. Big blockers don't also care about restricting Bitcoin to cash related uses and they most likely don't care about spam.

I think the enemy just keeps adapting and looking for ways to hijack the network without being detected and without much resistance. And he could easily use any side, which is why everything must be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that non of the Bitcoin ideal is compromised. No one should be emotionally attached to any side, just review everything and judge impartially.

By the way, resistance against big blockers was higher in the past compared to resistance today. It's seems many have given up, scared or are willing to compromise for temporary gains. But the resisting minority today are the fiercest and uncompromisable

[DaveF]

Other miners have to look at it as yeah, we are getting $195,000 +/- a bit for the block and chopping $800+ off of that is some low paid employees salary for the week so include everything.

It's not theoretical either-- today and for years miners modify stock Bitcoin Core to include *more* than it would otherwise.

It's also ironic in that at the times when the NFT traffic was a problem it was bringing in enormous floods of money for miners-- with over a quarter of a billion dollars paid to miners in fees for NFTs alone.  Those large amounts really make your point.  But right now, the amounts aren't large because NFT floods aren't currently an issue and haven't been for several years-- because the existing countermeasure of market action on fees running out the flooders budget was successful.

Yup, and with the price of BTC where it is now it makes it even more likely that miners are going to dump their lukecoin bags asap for whatever they can get, if it can even be sold anywhere which will kill any others from potentially mining it because the price is going to be so low. Not even a comment on the fork, just in general that at this point for larger miners any money is good money.

But, and this is probably not going to happen, if luke gets his chain and Paul Sztorc gets his chain and they do move and do have some value we can have the 2017 fork explosion all over again.
Because we can all use some good entertainment. And some beer money from selling those forks. Still kicking myself for not dumping my BCH when it was in the $1000s

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

we can have the 2017 fork explosion all over again.

Won't happen due to Archer v. Coinbase.

The forkcoin explosion happened because altcoin creators found a way to get around exchanges demanding significant bribes of millions or tens of millions of dollars plus a large cut of the coin supply (making it impractical to make non-premined altcoins) for listing-- by making an airdrop to existing customers the reasoning was exchanges had to adopt the forks to at least some extent.  But in the US the courts ruled that exchanges have no obligation to give their users fork coins, they can give them, trash them, ignore them, or sell them for their own profit.  When you deposit coins in an exchange the coins become the exchanges property and you just have a debt from the exchange for the assets, unless you have another agreement with them.

I'm kinda sad because the forkcoin explosion was profitable for me and because I think the barriers to creating a new cryptocurrency should be low.  I'm not a fan of altcoins generally, but I am a fan of the freedom to create them, and a fan of the fact this freedom makes it safe to tell people that want to hobble bitcoin to jog off: if we're wrong and their change is actually good it can show up in an altcoin which can beat bitcoin in the market without coercing anyone with limits they don't want... but the opposite conclusion from Archer wouldn't be viable: exchanges might (and would!) face a constant flood of forks some of which may include vulnerabilities or outright backdoors and so they clearly can't have any obligation to adopt them.  No one, including exchanges, should have an obligation to use any cryptocurrency they don't want to use.  (and while Archer v. Coinbase isn't binding precedent in many other places the reasoning for it is solid and I think exchanges will rely on it)

Part of the psychonomics of of forkcoins is that only a tiny portion of their "supply" is ever actually in circulation-- especially when their price is below a couple percent of Bitcoin's most people just don't bother cashing them in and just abandon them.  This makes them similar in some ways to massively premined coins in the sense that there is a huge stash of effectively dead coins that crank up the asset's standing on "market cap" rankings.  The fact that exchanges can just sell coins in their custody though screws this up-- as they're likely to have large consolidations that make it worth their time to do so even when the price is a small percentage of Bitcoin's...  further eroding the benefits of launching forkcoins.  Plus even without the Archer problem they just haven't worked out that well long term for this reason:  Any time their price goes "too high" a bunch of coins wake up and drive the price back down.  Normally in markets uncommited owners selling quickly gives way to more committed owners owning the assets, but the costs of accessing fork coins seems to be enough to slow this process down massively.  Heck, even I probably still own some BCH I haven't bothered digging up and selling but would if the price got high enough.  Everyone forgets about the forks long before the uncommitted (or even adverse) owners are flushed out.

In the case of 110 if I had to wager I'd bet that it won't result in a tradable asset simply because the people promoting it are deeply committed to the belief that they'll be able to force it on others and don't appear to have any commitment to use it themselves when others reject their coercion.  I expect their nodes to all stall at the mandatory signaling block, after a day or a few they may get a block or two, but of course no one else will be following that lower-work fork, and anyone nervous about it will invalidateblock it.  At their current hashrate it would take years to get its difficulty to normal levels, and while luke-jr has comment some about 'hardforking' if 110 isn't adopted (which presumably would at least mean adjusting the difficulty to a level their hashpower could sustain) everyone else involved seems to just be in total denial.  Most of the people promoting it also seem to lack the means to pay even the most modest listing bribes.

I'm going to guess that when it explodes they'll rewrite history and claim it was never intended to activate but was really just supposed to make a point about rejecting "spam"-- and they'll continue to harass Bitcoiners and push other proposals to try to block transactions they don't like rather than consign themselves to invisibility by forging their own path in accordance with their claimed values because deep down they know that people don't want what they're selling.  Sad, both because I'd welcome selling some free censor coins and because their anti-bitcoin-ethos and extensive unprofessional antagonism is wasting a bunch of time and effort that would best be spent elsewhere and potentially undermining short term confidence in Bitcoin's value.

[DaveF]

I think that a lot of 2nd and 3rd tier exchanges are going to list whatever forks they can. They still make their money listing anything and everything and taking their fees on trades.
Fork / token / whatever they will take their trading fees and say thank you. Put in some stupid restrictions like after the fork you have 5 days to claim your forked coins or they become property of the exchange.
With so many of them still being unlicensed & working in places with no regulation they really don't care.
Coinbase / Gemini / etc. no not going to touch it at all.


As for the chain stalling. Depends on how much money people are willing to put out there. Probably not much, but you never know. Its not going to move fast, but it may keep moving slowly. At 1 block a day it should only take about 5 years for the difficulty to drop. Yes, they swapped difficulty and algos but people are still almost 9 years later mining things like Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond and who knows what else. So I can see 110 also just being zombie mined.

I'm going to guess that when it explodes they'll rewrite history and claim it was never intended to activate but was really just supposed to make a point about rejecting "spam"-- and they'll continue to harass Bitcoiners and push other proposals to try to block transactions they don't like rather than consign themselves to invisibility by forging their own path in accordance with their claimed values because deep down they know that people don't want what they're selling.  Sad, both because I'd welcome selling some free censor coins and because their anti-bitcoin-ethos and extensive unprofessional antagonism is wasting a bunch of time and effort that would best be spent elsewhere and potentially undermining short term confidence in Bitcoin's value.

Some people might, I think a lot of people involved are zealot cultists and are going to follow knots / luke / 110 off the cliff.
Video of luke and pepe in August: https://youtu.be/66CP-pq7Cx0?t=217

But you are correct in the fact that dealing with them is a total waste of time and energy.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

You don't discuss the problem that BIP110 attempts to fix

If the solution is worse than the problem, then it should fail, before people can focus on fixing it properly.

Coretards NEVER EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE that there is even a problem. All you do is focus on your stupid predictions that BIP110 will fail.

So you don't mention the problem, mostly because you are shitcoiners. You almost never refer to Bitcoin as money. I read the forum. You all talk about a "decentralized network" or a "peer-to-per database". You Ade all allergic to thinking of bitcoin as money.

you don't discuss the merits of BIP110

Because the only thing it does, is making blocking transactions easier, without doing anything positive to solve the spam problem.

Here we go again with the fucking stupid predictions stated as if they were facts.
When core decided to remove the very last mention of the word money from their documentation in 2022, that did not result in a wave of spam overnight. But it was the start of a slippery slope, a signal inviting spammers in.

When core rejected Luke's ordinal filter for stupid reasons, that was an other signal to spammers: "We won't stop you if you come on our network"

When core devs go on podcasts, insult monetary bitcoiners, and refer to malware as "use cases we have today", that is an other signal: " Welcome on our platform to all the malware and spam."

When they blew up the op_return, that was an other signal: "We are now dropping out defences against spam and malware."

None of these signals resulted in a sudden wave of malware. They all are a gradual slippery slope and malware on bitcoin keeps getting worst and worst every year.

BIP110 is not a sudden stop that will kill all malware overnight. It's a signal. The signal that malware assholes won't be tolerated on bitcoin anymore. More signals are coming. Core signals to invite and tolerate malware are not going to be tolerated anymore.

After BIP-110:

1. There will still be a lot of spam, it will just take a worse form, which is harder to manage, harder to block, harder to optimize, and harder to skip in any way.

Yes, the stupid prediction that fighting malware only makes malware worst and so we have to bend over and be nice to them and remove filters to appease the malware attackers.

I would tell you to grow a spine. But you can't do that because you are the problem.

2. Some transactions will be blocked, which will break censorship resistance, as different users will want to block more and more things in the future, by introducing next BIPs.

You see, this is why you have to talk about your stupid predictions and not address what BIP110 does. Because every time you do, you expose yourself as an other shitcoiner.
They are not "transactions", they are malware.
And blocking malware is not "censorship", it is required for bitcoin to survive and thrive.

Which means, that those, who really want to solve the spam problem, have to simply wait for BIP-110 to fail, before doing other things, which could actually be helpful.

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

ertil about malware: "Fighting malware will just result in more malware. We have to blow up malware filters and be nice to the attackers in order for them to stop"

You have absolutely no substance to offer.

You rejected the idea of handling a subset of the mainnet traffic.

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. I don't understand your idea. And believe be, when I want a solution to malware, the last place I'll look for advise is a shitcoiner who doesn't even think there is a malware problem.

You still think, that all nodes will be forever forced to store everything, which is not the case. The idea of running a full node, by billions of people, is flawed

The security and decentralization of Bitcoin requires the existence of a large number of full nodes. Simply saying "just trim your copy of the chain dude" is something some nodes might have to do at some point. But increasing the risk in order to cope with malware, that is a degree of compromising to malware none of the nodes should have to do.

even Satoshi didn't want to have more than 100k nodes

Citation needed.

and wanted to provide simplified ways of interacting with the network for regular users.

We need more "regular users" operaring a full node. We don't need an increasing amount of nodes switching to pruned nodes. While it's liky to happen over time of course, I have no desire to speed up the process as a coping mechanism for malware on Bitcoin.

They don't even discuss what BIP110 actually does.

It blocks output types, which were used by Satoshi.

These output types are outdated and inneficient. Fewer than 3 of them per week are observed on chain and they are all used by malware assholes. But malware assholes don't care about anything outdated or inneficient, do they?

[DaveF]

even Satoshi didn't want to have more than 100k nodes

Citation needed.

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

-Dave

[nutildah]

Interest in Ordinals and other "bitcoin spam" continues to wane after the market was thoroughly oversaturated with these things, and now practically nobody wants them. Ordinals infrastructure is shutting down and the parties behind it have pivoted to the next thing.

So basically BIP110 is a (band-aid) solution to a problem that no longer exists. Core applied the correct approach, which was to do nothing and let the market sort itself out, and that's what happened.

It's also ironic in that at the times when the NFT traffic was a problem it was bringing in enormous floods of money for miners-- with over a quarter of a billion dollars paid to miners in fees for NFTs alone.  Those large amounts really make your point.  But right now, the amounts aren't large because NFT floods aren't currently an issue and haven't been for several years-- because the existing countermeasure of market action on fees running out the flooders budget was successful.

Well said. The miners and the marketplaces were the real winners.

[PepeLapiu]

I think that a lot of 2nd and 3rd tier exchanges are going to list whatever forks they can.

Still floating around the idea that bitcoiners are going to hard fork, hand you the keys to bitcoin and let you destroy it with your retarded scams and malware while we go off to create and other worthless shitcoin?

You are confusing your dream and our goal. We have no in tensions of giving malkware assholes exactly what they want.

And again, you coretards can't help buy derail every single thread by not addressing the OP and going off on your stupid hard fork predictions.

(maximum coretard slop removed)

Essentially, your entire post is about compromising with malware, pruning around malware, and coping around malware. You offer nothing of substance other than cope and complainsance.

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

gmaxwell about malware: "Naaahhh! Just bend over, prune, cope, run something else, compromise, don't run a node. Don't do anything to disturb malware."

even Satoshi didn't want to have more than 100k nodes

Citation needed.

Here you go:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

There is a good reason why you posted a link but did not quote Satoshi - because it doesn't support your claim at all. Here is what Satoshi wrote:

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

He did not write that he didn't want more than 100k nodes. He simply wrote he diesn't anticipate there would be more than 100k full nodes.

And for the record, there are around 90,000 nodes. And of those 90,000 nodes, we have no idea how many are full nodes. Your guestimate is as good as mine. What is for sure is that we don't have 100k full nodes, and core's signalling to malware to come in ans set up shop on Bitcoin doesn't do anything to help fix the problem. It in fact exacerbates the problem.

[DaveF]

Still floating around the idea that bitcoiners are going to hard fork, hand you the keys to bitcoin and let you destroy it with your retarded scams and malware while we go off to create and other worthless shitcoin?

You are confusing your dream and our goal. We have no in tensions of giving malkware assholes exactly what they want.

And again, you coretards can't help buy derail every single thread by not addressing the OP and going off on your stupid hard fork predictions.

But you started this thread with:

The difference is that BIP110 will split the chain while remaining inside the network, until the legacy chain is abandoned. No new coin will be generated. No air drop of new coin will occur.

And you still have not been able to show enough support to get enough of the hashrate for 110 to matter and not be a different chain that is not accepting valid blocks that all the other miners see as valid.

Under 60 days until knots nodes stop accepting blocks that don't signal support for 110 and you have as of this post 0.6% of mined blocks in this period showing support.

We are not going to fork, the knots nodes are going to stop accepting blocks that as of now 99.4% of the people are mining.

What happens to those nodes after that I really don't care. They will not be part of the main chain. All that matters is which chain has the most work, which as of now knots cannot achieve.

If you can't understand that you need a significant amount of the network for a UASF to be viable then you have to go and do more research and learn more math.
It's not a hard vs soft discussion. It's math. And you will be outside the accepted network, more then likely on a stalled chain. There really is nothing else to say because in the end the 110 chain does not matter at all.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

And you still have not been able to show enough support to get enough of the hashrate for 110 to matter and not be a different chain that is not accepting valid blocks that all the other miners see as valid.

Keep wrapping yourself in the comfort of arrogance, complaisance, and certainty that BIP110 will fail.
I'm not entertaining your predictions anymore. You would do well to do nothing, and sit back with the certainty that BIP110 will fail. Because you actually have the tools to reject BIP110. But coretards are so complaisant in their arrogance, that none of you have attempted to deploy those tools.

So keep throwing around stoopit meaningless dismissive statements like:

- But it's censorship to block dickbutt.jpeg on chain
- But the miner fee was paid and it's a valid tx.
- But what is spam anyways? Bitcoin is just a database!
- But all your nodes are fake, Sybil nodes.
- But all my comments are real, but your comments are fake bots.

Under 60 days until knots nodes stop accepting blocks that don't signal support for 110 and you have as of this post 0.6% of mined blocks in this period showing support.

Yeah, 0.9 of the blocks actually. And I can't wait to reach 1% so you can tell me they are all Sybil blocks! 🙄

We are not going to fork, the knots nodes are going to stop accepting blocks that as of now 99.4% of the people are mining.

Big miners gave absolutely no incentives to signal for BIP110 right now. They gain nothing by doing so. The number of miners signalling for BIP110 will likely reach 2-3% by August. During the mandatory signally period, that number will likely increase some more. But again, big miners have no incentives to signal for one fork or the other. The pressure starts on September 1st when 10-15% of the nodes start throwing blocks in the garbage. Only than will miners be forced to make a decision.

Your entire opinion is held on your belief and prediction that none of them will flip the switch when the pressure is applied. It's a very shitty way to build your views on the subject.

Over 55% of the nodes have not updated to either Knots or core 30. Either they have no opinion, or they are out of the loop, or they don't know which side to pick, or they are waiting before they do make a choice.

Of the 45% who did update, 49-55% of them have switched to Knots/BIP110. And of them are running BIP110 (depending on who's counting).

Between 8 and 12% of the nodes are running BIP110. That is not an insignificant number. Now I know you want to delusion yourself with the belief they are all Sybil nodes, and all the support from the community is all fake bots.

But here is what you fail to understand. If it was just me flipping a switch and spinning up 10,000 BIP110 nodes on AWS, the total node count would rise up by 10,000 more node.
But that is not what we are seeing at all. The total nodes count did go up in the last year, yes. But not anywhere close to 10,00 more. And in fact, at the same time as we see a rise in Knots/110 nodes, we can also see a decline in total core node counts. This shows you that clearly, some core nodes are switching over to Knots/110.

Should that surprise you?
Should you be surprised that the community is reacting to core blowing up malware filters?
Should you be surprised that the community is reacting to core insulting Bitcoin maximalists and calling us knuckle dragging meat eaters? (as if my diet had any relevance to anything at all)

Nobody wants to risk being forced to host any and all picture anyone wants to post on chain, no matter how disgusting these files may be.

Who is forcing you to do so?

For bitcoin to function as a decentralized network, it is required that a large number of nodes have a copy of the full chain, and make all of it available for other nodes to download.
Nobody is "forcing me" to do anything. But malware incentivize fewer and fewer people to run a node, much less a full node.

I'll compromise and prune my node when I can't hold all the blocks of monetary txs any longer. Me, and the rest of the nodes have no desire to compromise for your fucking malware. Do you fucking understand? I'm not going to prune my node as a defeatist cope mechanism and a compromise to your fucking dickbutt.jpeg.

For each and every block or transaction, any given node can always say "I don't have it". For example: if you ask about the block 0000000000052ab478b6f8a2dcaba26a189361c9030b5d56c524cb7bddf00d0c, or transaction ID c3ca178c765213777397b162c366ca50e82bab1528c819bd7b77952bbb6a8611, then all nodes will say "I don't have it".

If you don't make the full blockchain available to other nodes, you are not a full node.
And don't be sneaky. Give me the number of the block itself, something between 1 and 953,180.

But Bcasg was a HARD fork, and as much as coretards want to deny it, BIP110 is a SOFT fork.

A minority soft-fork, to be specific.

I'm not entertaining your retarded BIP110 failure predictions. This is not what this thread is all about. Re-read to OP and address the subject presented to you.

If your crystal ball tells you BIP110 will either fail or turn into a hard fork, you are clueless. You don't understand the game theory at play here. And I have to in tensions of explaining it to you and provide you with the tolls that could effectively kill BIP110.

Keep wrapping yourself in the arrogance, certainty, and complaisance of predicting that BIP110 will fail. Just don't do it over and over and over again on my threads, okay?

[ertil]

Because you actually have the tools to reject BIP110.

There is a client for that, but it is not that popular: https://github.com/supertestnet/ursf-110

There is no reason to include it into Bitcoin Core, if BIP-110 will fail on its own. Following the heaviest chain is compatible with the whitepaper, so rejecting a successful soft-fork would render the coin unsafe anyway, and then, more changes would be needed, to maintain a minority soft-fork. Also, people can, and will run tools on top of Bitcoin Core, which could use commands like "invalidateblock". Even Paul Sztorc demonstrated, how it could work, without changing Bitcoin Core, so why merge something, that is controversial, and can be achieved in different ways?

But what is spam anyways? Bitcoin is just a database!

BIP-110 proponents never defined a list of things, which are safe to use. And it turned out, that even simple things, like P2PK outputs, are considered as "not a payment". Which means, that nobody can feel safe, that his coins will be spendable, if you can invalidate things, which were used by Satoshi, without a single sentence of justification in the BIP for that.

So, when BIP-110 will define, what is a spam? Is P2PK a spam?

Yes: Then Satoshi was a spammer, right?
No: Then why BIP-110 blocks it?

But you will keep pretending, that BIP-110 has no bugs.

Yeah, 0.9 of the blocks actually. And I can't wait to reach 1% so you can tell me they are all Sybil blocks!

Something like 1% or 2% would be healthy, because it would allow BIP-110 proponents to leave the BTC world, and switch to their own chain. Which is needed, because then, everyone could see, what would happen in a chain, which goes too far, and blocks too many things. You don't want to make a testnet to see that, so you will see it in production, if you really want. Then, people will have a lot of incentive to swap all of their BIP-110 coins for BTCs, or to make a lot of spammy transactions, and test some edge cases, if there would be not enough buyers, and people would have just a bunch of useless coins on a minority chain.

During the mandatory signally period, that number will likely increase some more.

By definition, in a chain with only BIP-110 blocks, and nothing else, it will reach 100% immediately. But: by the time you will make 2016 blocks, the stronger chain will make much more than that.

But again, big miners have no incentives to signal for one fork or the other.

So they won't signal at all. And then, Knots will reject their blocks, so the stronger chain will just ignore BIP-110, and Knots clients will wait for Ocean's blocks.

The pressure starts on September 1st when 10-15% of the nodes start throwing blocks in the garbage.

If you would have 1%, or maybe 2% or 3% of the hashrate, then you won't have 2016 blocks on September 1st. Read the whitepaper, and count properly, what is the probability, that x% of the hashrate will mine N blocks in a given time. Satoshi provided the code to do so, directly in the whitepaper.

I'll compromise and prune my node when I can't hold all the blocks of monetary txs any longer.

See? BIP-110 only delays the problem, instead of solving it. Imagine that 100% of transactions would be payments. Would it help full nodes to handle all of that traffic any easier? Of course not. The problem of Initial Blockchain Download is still the same, no matter what is stored inside blocks. Which means, that BIP-110 does nothing to solve it, and another solution will be needed anyway.

If you don't make the full blockchain available to other nodes, you are not a full node.

Not everyone has to run a full node. Even Satoshi talked explicitly about the light clients, used by millions, not about all of them running full nodes.

Give me the number of the block itself, something between 1 and 953,180.

Internally, clients work on block hashes, because you can have two or more blocks on the same height for a while. Which can already show you, that you don't store every block and transaction, which happened since 2009, because you for example don't store stale blocks.

Just don't do it over and over and over again on my threads, okay?

It is funny that you wanted to encourage me to discuss your topics through PMs, and now you no longer want it. Well, we have to deal with all of that BIP-110 mess, as long as it wouldn't fork. And it is important to point at BIP-110 flaws, like blocking P2PKs, when people lie, that it is not the case, or that it has no bugs.

[gmaxwell]

Would it help full nodes to handle all of that traffic any easier? Of course not. The problem of Initial Blockchain Download is still the same, no matter what is stored inside blocks.

It matters somewhat but NFT crap makes blocks *faster* to process, because signatures are slow and data is fast.  The difference isn't just theoretical, bitmexresearch went and measured it for internet lols.

Of course, it doesn't matter because the resource limits are set in a way to protect people's ability to run nodes.  If they're not sufficient for that it's a problem with the limits, not a problem with playing god over which transactions go in or don't go in.

And for the record, there are around 90,000 nodes. And of those 90,000 nodes, we have no idea how many are full nodes. Your guestimate is as good as mine. What is for sure is that we don't have 100k full nodes, and core's signalling to malware to come in ans set up shop on Bitcoin doesn't do anything to help fix the problem. It in fact exacerbates the problem.

... the 90k figure is a count of bitcoin full nodes Pepe.  The non-listening node count you're referring to is done in way that could have significant sampling errors, erroneously count fake nodes, etc. So some of them may not be nodes at all, but whatever are real are full nodes.

[PepeLapiu]

Because you actually have the tools to reject BIP110.

There is a client for that, but it is not that popular:

Yup, you are correct. And in fact, a URSF is the only way to stop a UASF that has gained some traction.
But it's too late now and nobody outside of a couple of high profile coretards would ever run that hot mess of a spamware.
There is no desire at all from the community to run something that prevents anti-malware measures.

There is no reason to include it into Bitcoin Core, if BIP-110 will fail on its own.

Yup, keep telling yourself that. You arrogance and confidence will be your demise.

But what is spam anyways? Bitcoin is just a database!

BIP-110 proponents never defined a list of things, which are safe to use.

That's a no-brainer. If you do shitcoinery on Bitcoin, if your intension is to upload dickbutt.jpegs, not actually send a payment, your retarded ways are not supported and not safe.

And it turned out, that even simple things, like P2PK outputs, are considered as "not a payment".

You are falsely attributing quotation marks. Nobody says that P2PK outputs are not a payment. The truth is that nobody sends anything to P2PK outputs anymore. Only malware assholes still use P2PK outputs. Tgey are outdated, inneficient, and retarded to use. An average of 2-3 UTXOs per week are P2PK addresses and they are all used by malware assholes.

Which means, that nobody can feel safe, that his coins will be spendable

Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid? BIP110 does not block you from using P2PK inputs, only outputs. Which means you can spend you coin from it, but you just can't send your coin to a P2PK output.

if you can invalidate things, which were used by Satoshi, without a single sentence of justification in the BIP for that.

BIP110 invalidates some of the most popular malware methods used today. Sending to a P2PK output is used only by malware assholes.

So, when BIP-110 will define, what is a spam?

We will never do that. If you want to be a nihilistic Marxist asshole and ask yourself "What is a woman?"  or "What is spam on Bitcoin?" you are on your own. Let us know when you are ready to sit at the grown ups table.

Is P2PK a spam?

Can a man get pregnant?
P2PK outputs are spam. Yes.
And you can't get pregnant just because you feel like a woman.

Yes: Then Satoshi was a spammer, right?
No: Then why BIP-110 blocks it?

:eye_roll:

But you will keep pretending, that BIP-110 has no bugs.

Failing to hold your hand while we define malware for you does not constitute a bug. It's called not wasting time on nihilistic retards who can't tell malware from their own ass.

Yeah, 0.9 of the blocks actually. And I can't wait to reach 1% so you can tell me they are all Sybil blocks!

Something like 1% or 2% would be healthy, because it would allow BIP-110 proponents to leave the BTC world, and switch to their own chain.

Not gonna happen. Stop begging. Bitcoiners are not abandoning Bitcoin for your pleasure and nihilistic tendencies to destroy what you don't understand.

I'm getting tired of playing chess with a pigeon. You shit all over the board and tip pieces over. I give up, the pigeon wins the chess game. I'm not reading the rest of your bullshit.