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

[ABCbits]

Big blockers don't also care about restricting Bitcoin to cash related uses and they most likely don't care about spam.

You remind how some BCH supporter consider https://memo.cash/ as legitimate or unique BCH usage. As reminder, it's social media that push it's data using OP_RETURN.

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.

Based on the data of that X post, it's probably when Magic Eden decide to only focus on Solana again. Trading volume on other website such as UniSat have declined a lot, with how UniSat homepage shows 30d volume by default.

[gmaxwell]

What is a woman? Can a man get pregnant?

Please, Mr. Rape Skunk-- this is a Bitcoin forum, take your weirdo kink special interest somewhere else because it has no place in this discussion.

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 Tgey are outdated, inneficient, and retarded to use.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.[...] Sending to a P2PK output is used only by malware assholes.

Where is this supposedly problematic spam/malware using p2pk that demand shutting it down?  It simply doesn't exist.  Meanwhile, people might well have old timelocked (or just unannounced) transactions that pay to these outputs so blocking them has confiscatory surface-- and for what justification?  They're even smaller than the OP_RETURNS that 110 does allow.

Bizarrely ironic Wright claimed at various points that he couldn't access his coins because "core"  changed consensus rules in a way that invalidated timelocked payments and literally sued us over these supposedly unauthorized changes in his second multibillion dollar lawsuit against us.  Of course no such change ever happened-- because, among other reasons, the project doesn't make changes with meaningful confiscatory surface!   Wild that it seems that now luke-jr is on a mission to make Wright's false accusations more plausible!

I give up, the pigeon wins the chess game.

We are legion. 🕊️

[ABCbits]

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 Tgey are outdated, inneficient, and retarded to use.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.[...] Sending to a P2PK output is used only by malware assholes.

Where is this supposedly problematic spam/malware using p2pk that demand shutting it down?  It simply doesn't exist.

Talking about something that doesn't (really) exist, https://mainnet.observer/charts/inputs-and-outputs-p2pk/ shows there's almost no new P2PK output being created since middle 2021. It's a shame there's no blockexplorer that have filter to only show TX that create new P2PK output or send to P2PK.

[ertil]

And in fact, a URSF is the only way to stop a UASF that has gained some traction.

Ignoring a minority soft-fork is easier, and less risky in case, when URSF would lose. And it ends up on the same chain, as all old clients.

That's a no-brainer.

If defining a spam is so easy, then why BIP-110 didn't do that? Is P2PK a spam or not? BIP-110 proponents won't tell you, because they don't know, and they never tried to test things properly, to even notice, that it is blocked by this BIP.

Nobody says that P2PK outputs are not a payment.

Then, why BIP-110 blocks P2PK payments? It was declared to contain no bugs, and affect no users.

The truth is that nobody sends anything to P2PK outputs anymore.

Which means it would only hurt old users with old wallets, who may want to sweep their coins. So, why block it?

Only malware assholes still use P2PK outputs.

Bold words to call a Satoshi, and other early adopters like that.

BIP110 does not block you from using P2PK inputs, only outputs.

If you have an old transaction from 2009, that is timelocked, then you cannot change its outputs.

Which means you can spend you coin from it, but you just can't send your coin to a P2PK output.

If your coins will be in your outputs, then you are affected.

We will never do that.

If BIP-110, and next BIPs after that will never define the safe area of things, that wouldn't be blocked, then why users would trust that code? Why users could be sure, that their today's scripts won't be blocked in the future? The only thing you need is to call something "outdated", make a BIP, and convince people, that it is a spam, even if your coins could be moved with a single signature, below 120 bytes.

why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?

That's already possible.  <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG.  <pubkey> can be 33 to 120 bytes.

I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data.  There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway.  It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.

See? Satoshi supported data pushes up to 120 bytes, specifically to allow pushing additional data on-chain, which would be just ignored. And he even supported "a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data", which is what is known today as OP_RETURN. And then, if you allow OP_RETURNs up to 83 bytes, then why you block all standard P2PKs, which are always smaller than that?

New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.

Having two different limits here is just inconsistent. But you keep pretending, that BIP-110 has no bugs, and affects no users.

[PepeLapiu]

What is a woman? Can a man get pregnant?

Please, Mr. Rape Skunk-- this is a Bitcoin forum, take your weirdo kink special interest somewhere else because it has no place in this discussion.

Coretards claiming they can't figure out what spam is, that's on the same nihilism cloud as litards not being able to figure out what is a woman.

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.[...] Sending to a P2PK output is used only by malware assholes.

Where is this supposedly problematic spam/malware using p2pk that demand shutting it down?

As it turns out it's coretard ertil that first claimed BIP110 would block txs with P2PH outputs. And I hadn't bothered to verify this claim, which is totally false.
It's total bullshit. BIP110 says and does absolutely nothing about P2PH

Of course no such change ever happened-- because, among other reasons, the project doesn't make changes with meaningful confiscatory surface!  

I guess you consider core 30 deliberately deleting private keys not a "meaningful confiscatory surface"?

Wild that it seems that now luke-jr is on a mission to make Wright's false accusations more plausible!

Luke didn't do that, core 30 did.
Need I remind you that core 30 not only blows up a malware filter in the middle of a 4 year long malware attack, but also saw fit to delete private keys as a meaningful and proper was to do wallet migration, because they decided they no longer wanted to support some legacy wallets?

[ertil]

And I hadn't bothered to verify this claim, which is totally false.

Then, why Knots removed some test cases, related to P2PK? Because developers were bored?

BIP110 says and does absolutely nothing about P2PH

Do you think, that it is a good idea, to suddenly invalidate an address type, which is standard since 2009, without a single sentence of explanation?

New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.

And then, the size of P2PK is 35 bytes for compressed public keys, and 67 bytes for uncompressed public keys. Which means, that BIP-110 will silently invalidate it, without justifying it in any way.

[DaveF]

And I hadn't bothered to verify this claim, which is totally false.

Then, why Knots removed some test cases, related to P2PK? Because developers were bored?

Nah, I'm going to go with incompetent.

BIP110 says and does absolutely nothing about P2PH

Do you think, that it is a good idea, to suddenly invalidate an address type, which is standard since 2009, without a single sentence of explanation?

You mean because that is what luke wants is not a good explanation?

New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.

And then, the size of P2PK is 35 bytes for compressed public keys, and 67 bytes for uncompressed public keys. Which means, that BIP-110 will silently invalidate it, without justifying it in any way.

Once again because that is what luke wants is all the justification they need.

Makes you wonder what lukes next proposal is going to be. A fork to get back all the coins he lost?

-Dave

[ertil]

However, I think it could be nice to use P2PK as a replay protection. For example: if someone wants to split coins into BIP-110, and non-BIP-110 ones, then all that is needed, is just making a timelocked transaction, which would send them to P2PK. Then, once it would be confirmed on non-BIP-110 chain, it could be spent in any other way on a BIP-110 chain, and then, coins will split.

For example:

Code:

decoderawtransaction 03000000000101b4583e838e8f8e506667e70fcc91475500b616aa59f80fe22527c3e84678ad310000000000fdffffff0150c3000000000000232103e4629587edb274bfcb3d61959d7bf26a4ade1ea714c6e3f2ea29eaa7244172caac0247304402201bfac64d3bd39f78d21dfc9f44a27bc25b9d0fe4d4715b98e70c7d641ffe188802202cba80091153d7648813987822c481b4fb6e29ecbaa6981ca1ad34d614f7ab99832103f0b9aecd7bab4cda86a468124fce17ef41725473448c3a45e8a2cada4a0b78892ebc0e00
{
  "txid": "fe5dbad47dcfd54ee8eb3538be283abb343f2a4aa4aea2c7358b2b944eefbb93",
  "hash": "695d7148ffdbd40ce4fa9af6d3a6c4d420be682dcdfdca884ae94c32bdb99452",
  "version": 3,
  "size": 204,
  "vsize": 123,
  "weight": 489,
  "locktime": 965678,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "31ad7846e8c32725e20ff859aa16b600554791cc0fe76766508e8f8e833e58b4",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "",
        "hex": ""
      },
      "txinwitness": [
        "304402201bfac64d3bd39f78d21dfc9f44a27bc25b9d0fe4d4715b98e70c7d641ffe188802202cba80091153d7648813987822c481b4fb6e29ecbaa6981ca1ad34d614f7ab9983",
        "03f0b9aecd7bab4cda86a468124fce17ef41725473448c3a45e8a2cada4a0b7889"
      ],
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.00050000,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "03e4629587edb274bfcb3d61959d7bf26a4ade1ea714c6e3f2ea29eaa7244172ca OP_CHECKSIG",
        "desc": "pk(03e4629587edb274bfcb3d61959d7bf26a4ade1ea714c6e3f2ea29eaa7244172ca)#dvs7qtfl",
        "hex": "2103e4629587edb274bfcb3d61959d7bf26a4ade1ea714c6e3f2ea29eaa7244172caac",
        "type": "pubkey"
      }
    }
  ]
}

Let's see, if P2PK will split it correctly or not. If there would be any test network, then we would know for sure, but now, we can only guess. Of course, more inputs are needed to complete it, because it has zero fees on purpose. Only the first input and output is signed, so this transaction can be expanded, but the timelock and transaction version has to stay the same (so nobody will broadcast it earlier, even if it is valid).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Imagine how much money Pepe would make if instead of complaining for the natural order of Bitcoin, he actually dedicated into something and helped people.

You literally don't have the money to take a bet with me that pays you 20 to 1 odds for something you presumably are certain. That makes you wonder whether you are actually a human with no life, or an AI that is put in place by Luke to just waste our time.

No seriously. I'm dead serious that your intentions are beyond this moronic debate. There's something else behind.

[nutildah]

No seriously. I'm dead serious that your intentions are beyond this moronic debate. There's something else behind.

Sometimes I feel like he is a plant by Big Core to make BIP110 people seem like unreasonable fascists. They can't all be like this, right?

But you're right -- there is something else behind: he has a YouTube channel. Its not a bad idea to use the debate as an emotional rallying point for the sake of influencering, getting clicks, selling ads, etc.

[DaveF]

No seriously. I'm dead serious that your intentions are beyond this moronic debate. There's something else behind.

Sometimes I feel like he is a plant by Big Core to make BIP110 people seem like unreasonable fascists. They can't all be like this, right?

But you're right -- there is something else behind: he has a YouTube channel. Its not a bad idea to use the debate as an emotional rallying point for the sake of influencering, getting clicks, selling ads, etc.

Do you remember the BSV people and all their crap? This is just crazy one person, with that we had more.

It's a cult, nothing more.
pepe has no BTC. He sold it / lost it whatever does not matter. Now, he needs someone to blame (core) and someone to save him (luke).

58 days from this post till they leave: https://jlopp.github.io/knotzi-death-march/
And as of this post still less then 1% of the blocks are signaling support: https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling

What will we do for entertainment comes early August?

And what do you think the next thing luke is going to try. I mean we have had the 400k blocks or whatever size he wanted to cut them down to, the blocking of gambling sites, the tonal bitcoin thing, 110 and I'm sure there is something else I'm forgetting.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Talking about something that doesn't (really) exist, https://mainnet.observer/charts/inputs-and-outputs-p2pk/ shows there's almost no new P2PK output being created since middle 2021. It's a shame there's no blockexplorer that have filter to only show TX that create new P2PK output or send to P2PK.

That is correct. I tries to search for hours and hours on mempool.space and I was not able to locate a single tx with P2PK outputs anywhere. I'm sure they exist but I have not found any.

My understanding, and I could be wrong, malware assholes like to use outputs of >34 bytes. They like biggest uncompressed inneficient use if bitcoin because their entire game is to put as much data on chain as possible. They work towards the opposite of scaling by attempting to stuff as much data in blocks as possible.

And so BIP110 blocks outputs of >34 bytes. And that would prevent people from sending to P2PK outputs. Which is something nobody does anymore as P2PK is outdated. Nobody uses it anymore.

But obstructionists want to make a big deal of it. Because they can't come out and say they really want to shove more garbage on chain.

BTW according to the following site, 15% of reachable nodes are BIP110. If that's true, we will likely get to 20-25% BIP110 nodes by September 1st:
https://btcnodes.io/nodes/software/

Now, of course the coretards will tell me those are all Sybil nodes. And of course the almost 1% of BIP110 signalling blocks are all Sybil blocks too? Lol

Again, I'm not 100% sure of this. I'll have to look it up some more. But preventing P2PK outputs will not hinder monetary users in any way.

And speaking of stuff that is outdated, why not talk about core 30 which made the stupid decision that they were not going to support an older type of wallet anymore and delete the private keys for it?

BIP110 prevents you from sending to a type of address nobody uses anymore. And core 30 deletes your keys. Which one should be throwing the first stone here? Which one should not be waving their finger at the other?

[gmaxwell]

Sometimes I feel like he is a plant by Big Core to make BIP110 people seem like unreasonable fascists. They can't all be like this, right?

This theory is undermined by the level of delusion coming straight from the top of the knotzi church.  Anyone wanting to false-flag would quickly realize they can't top the real deal.

I think it's a bit of autoimmune nonsense, -- What does a a bit of of an opposition defiant personality and an innate contrarian desire to fight the man do when they find themselves on the *winning* team (Bitcoin) for once in their lives?  Sometimes they fall for self promoting narcissists that are ready to sell them on largely imaginary threats.

Not that there aren't real threats and problems in Bitcoin land-- but the real ones tend to be hard problems without simple answers or otherwise they'd already be solved and plenty of other people have identified them and are working on them and have existing credibility.

If you really want to promote yourself you need a novel problem where you can be the foremost expert, no one cares if you show up saying the same thing as everyone else... and if you just make some shit up your priority on the subject is assured.  Plus, with a fictional issue you suffer no risk of anyone taking it away from you by fixing it.

They get a boost from attacking those who rightfully point out that your issue is overblown or outright imaginary.  "They're all in on in mannnn!!" -- just look at me:  one of the earliest Bitcoin contributors still in the community, with no financial interest in the space beyond that fact that I own some Bitcoin and they're constantly making vague accusations of all manner of crazy things from commercial conflicts of interest,  personal grudges, pathological dishonesty, of subscribing to left wing politics (?!?[1]), to outright sexual perversion.  All entirely baseless and quite insane to anyone who knows me at all-- flinging pasta at the wall and hoping to salt the earth with half remembered defamatory rumors.

Mix that with people who were born knowing that the world was out to keep them down-- a particular thread of humanity that has always been disproportionately attracted to Bitcoin-- and a larger casual population where they just know whatever their bubble is talking about and you get a ready made audience for whatever doomsday story someone wants to sell.

But that's just my barely informed impression.


[1] I find it particularly ironic because in my view a lot of the more absurd excesses of the left these days-- like seeing discrimination and hate behind every corner-- is likely a product of a similar process of grifters selling overhyped threats to an audience born with radical blood in a world that is frankly just too damn good (or at least so radically improved in recent history) such that the next great fight isn't clear and too many are left with idle hands.  Even Bitcoin.  We made new money that upturned almost everything about status quo money and nobody even seriously tried to stop us! ... and that's not how it goes in fiction.

[PepeLapiu]

Sometimes I feel like he is a plant by Big Core to make BIP110 people seem like unreasonable fascists. They can't all be like this, right?

This theory is undermined by the level of delusion coming straight from the top of the knotzi church.  

This is just so precious.

We know that Epstein was throwing money at blockstream while you were the CEO. We know that Andy Back visited the Epstein island. We could know more if the files that were released were not so heavily redacted. And we might know even more if the other 70% of the unreleased files were released.

As it is, we can be pretty sure the most damaging files were either redacted or not released at all. And what milder watered down files they have released clearly shows that blockstream and core were connected to Epstein. No need to talk to Luke for any of this.

We also know that the Bitcoin white paper tittle makes it clear Bitcoin is designed and intended as money, aka peer to peer internet cash. But as of 2022 core has removed every single mention of the word "money" from their documentation. And soon after, the ordinal craze started the malware attack we are still enduring.

Are you a tin foil coincidence theorist, Greg? I'm not!

The removal of the word "money" from all the core documentation constituted a signal to malware assholes: Come to Bitcoin, we have a home for you.

Next, Luke suggested an ordinal filter. Core was only too quick to dismiss it as "too controversial" while they were changing their definition of -datacarriersize and they use the new more permissive definition to reject the ordinal filter. That was a loud and clear signal to malware assholes: Come to Bitcoin. We'll make room for you.

Next, top core devs went on podcasts tours to insult the very people they build software for, calling bitcoiners basically retarded for eating meat and not enforcing the altcoins.

That was a loud and clear signal to malware assholes: We build the software and we gate bitcoiners, come set up shop on our chain.

The same core devs and talking heads started to refer to malware as "use cases we have today" or "new exciting uses cases". Again that was a loud signal to malware asshokes: Come to Bitcoin, we love you.

And after 4 years of perpetual and increasing malware on chain, core had the brilliant idea to remove a malware filter instead of adding new ones.

In case you didn't get it: Maxwell, Back, and the rest of the core talking heads are most absolutely compromised. They are not good stewards of bitcoin.

Core needs to go. Core needs to be marked as deprecated. And it's talking heads need to be ignored.

[ABCbits]

Makes you wonder what lukes next proposal is going to be. A fork to get back all the coins he lost?

FWIW, Binance CEO tried it back in 2019, https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/05/08/binance-considered-pushing-for-bitcoin-rollback-following-40-million-hack.

Talking about something that doesn't (really) exist, https://mainnet.observer/charts/inputs-and-outputs-p2pk/ shows there's almost no new P2PK output being created since middle 2021. It's a shame there's no blockexplorer that have filter to only show TX that create new P2PK output or send to P2PK.

That is correct. I tries to search for hours and hours on mempool.space and I was not able to locate a single tx with P2PK outputs anywhere. I'm sure they exist but I have not found any.

If you just want to find random TX that create P2PK output, just look for TX in old blocks. For example, https://mempool.space/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b that have 67 bytes output. But the hard part is finding most recent TX that create P2PK output.

[PepeLapiu]

If you just want to find random TX that create P2PK output, just look for TX in old blocks. For example, https://mempool.space/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b that have 67 bytes output. But the hard part is finding most recent TX that create P2PK output.

One AI (DDG I think) told me there are maybe 2-3 of them per week. Or around 10 of them per month on average. But not trusting AI, I went and looked for myself and found none.

In any case, coretards obstructionists are trying to make it a bigger deal than it is. It just means if you have a very very old wallet, you can move your coin to a new one but nobody can send to you.

I'd love to fond those rare P2PK outputs txs and see what they look like. I mean today's ones.
If they have a bunch of 330 sat and 546 outputs that's almost certainly malware.