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

[PepeLapiu]

First why are you pretending this is new to you?  You've seen this same correction of this vile slander previously and you chose to repeat it again.  Secondly: No, it's not the 'start' it's the entirety of it.

So say you, Greg. If there is more to it, it would be in the other 90% of the files that are not released. I say 90% because the 30% that was released is so heavily redacted as to be meaningless.
Perhaps at some point, the rest of the files will be released and we will find out core blockstream staff were going to pedo island to play Bingo and shuffle board?

I quoted the change your discussing it did not such thing. The word "money" the text it isn't even referring to money in that sense, it's discussing the seigniorage of new coins in mining ("issuing money")!  The new text doesn't say anything about Bitcoin-- it's just talking about what Bitcoin core is.  Absolutely no one involved with the project has ever suggested bitcoin isn't money, this is just outright deranged.

The definition of "What is Bitcoin?" was replaced with the definition of "What is Bitcoin Core?".
And the claimed reasoning for this is that it's already self evident what Bitcoin is.
Next a bunch of coretards and core devs went on podcasts, talking up a storm about " new use cases" and insulting bitcoin maximalists.

I'm an ass for pointing out that the doc change is uninteresting and that Knots has the same thing?  How does that make me an ass? Because I rudely disrupted your dishonesty, I guess.

The change is uninteresting for me because it is self evident for me what Bitcoin is. But it's not self evident to coretards who will never be able to find out Bitcoin is money if all they read is the core documebtation.


And the change that Luke did was completely different. He switched the word core for the work Knots. He did not remove the definition of bitcoin as money or currency.

Luke-jr is notorious online for defining things in constantly shifting idiosyncratic and often self-serving ways... and even was prior to Bitcoin existing.  Ask him about the sun revolving around the earth sometime.

How is that relevant to anything we discuss here?
Have you been to pedo island, Greg?
Has anyone else at Brink/Blockstream/core been to pedo island, Greg?

And all he did is change the word core and replaced it with Knots.

No, he also manually incorporated what you claim is a changed definition of Bitcoin.  Then later, confirming it wasn't just an accident, changed it up to say Knots.  There was nothing wrong with that, of course, but it exposes that you're gaslighting us all here.  If Core is bad for that change Knots is bad for it too.

Core removed the definition of bitcoin as money/currency from their own documentation. That by itself could be considered unimportant. Until you realise they spent the next 4 years pushing for "use cases" that have nothing to do with money, and ridiculing bitcoin maxis. All while trying to portrait any anti-malware measure as censorship.

And it's not the only instance of core changing documentation to avoid addressing something or to reject something they didn't like.

Remember that time when core turned a bug into a feature by changing their documentation?
Remember when core changed the definition of datacarriersize in order to reject Luke's ordinal filter?

If the new P2PK output have small satoshi, it only means someone creating dust output.

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, dust outputs of exactly 330 sats or 546 sats tend to belong to malware assholes. You and I could generate such outputs without even realizing it. But odds are pretty good than a 330 sat UTXO or a 546 sat UTXO were generated by some malware asshole.

But all that is pretty much irrelevant. Because neither you or I were able to find any recent P2PK UTXOs.
P2PK is dead, nobody sends to those addresse anymore. And even if anyone did, blocking them from doing so still would not be a big deal.

Stop trying to make an ant hill out of a big nothing burger.

This is not constructive criticism. Just like Maxwell claiming if you delete your keys, BIP110 will confiscate your coin. This is just retarded obstructionism.

[ABCbits]

But all that is pretty much irrelevant. Because neither you or I were able to find any recent P2PK UTXOs.

I asked about how to find it and someone found how to do it easily. Just visit https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/outputs?q=type(pubkey)#f=time,recipient,type,transaction_hash,value,block_id and sort by the date. But you'll need to see the TX using https://mempool.space/ since blockchair doesn't show the P2PK output correctly. From my quick check,

1. The amount of Bitcoin is relative low, but above dust limit.
2. I tried convert some public key from the new P2PK output to ASCII, but none of them are human readable.

[PepeLapiu]

But all that is pretty much irrelevant. Because neither you or I were able to find any recent P2PK UTXOs.

I asked about how to find it and someone found how to do it easily. Just visit https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/outputs?q=type(pubkey)#f=time,recipient,type,transaction_hash,value,block_id and sort by the date. But you'll need to see the TX using https://mempool.space/ since blockchair doesn't show the P2PK output correctly. From my quick check,

1. The amount of Bitcoin is relative low, but above dust limit.
2. I tried convert some public key from the new P2PK output to ASCII, but none of them are human readable.

Interesting! Thank you for that. Here is what I observed:

Last One was 14 days ago:
https://mempool.space/tx/9047133f0da31ba279878d4adc68604c1b21f6cb2c6bf33108e7aea71015d615
It appears that someone was sending 1000 sats to a P2PK address and got 3961 sats change.
I don't think this is a serious transaction. Someone appears to have been playing around and experimented with stuff. Now, of course I wouldn't dismiss it as a malware based on this. But it goes to show it's not really a "serious" transaction.

Second to last one was 27 days ago:
https://mempool.space/tx/00000000000ad99639585eb5fb0dc0bb093575719ecd78cfede972637b65de07
It contained 2 op_return and total size was 184kB. Non-standard, not seen in mempool. This is pure garbage, a direct submission via Slipstream malware to Mara. I'm glad BIP110 will block this kind of bullshit.

Third to last one was 6 weeks ago:
https://mempool.space/tx/232d563c74c519871cd70a1b797c5b66412ed66c96608b90dce0eef0e39d9242
Again, someone sent exactly 800 sats to a P2PK address, and no change at all. It looms again like someone was playing around, or experimenting with stuff. Not really anything bad about it, but I wouldn't really call this a monetary transaction, and wouldn't be against it either.

Point is, if we average 3000 transactions per block, there has been 18 million transactions in the last 6 weeks. Only 3 of them were sending to P2PK outputs. And it doesn't appear that any of them were real monetary transactions. One was obvious malware, and the other two were sending 800 and 1000 sats. Obviously just playing around, or testing something.

I think it's obvious that ertil and Maxwell are being whinny bitches about this when they complain about not being able to send to P2PK addresses. That's not constructive criticism, that's pure obstructionism. Plain and simple.

0.0000165% of transactions sent to P2PK addresses in the last 6 weeks.
99.99985% of transactions in the last 6 weeks would be exempt from this BIP110 restriction.

Keep talking, coretards. You just keep digging a bigger hole for yourselves.

BTW Greg, when will you accept to debate Mechanic? I'd love to watch you convince him that you can delete your keys and blame BIP110 for it.

[joker_josue]

I always find it very funny when I hear these stories, that Bitcoin now only collects junk, and that it has to be saved by Knots.

The thing is, in the end, I always hear the same argument about pedophilia.
I always get the impression that this Luke guy wants to follow the same path as that other guy from Bitcoin Cash.

[PepeLapiu]

I always find it very funny when I hear these stories, that Bitcoin now only collects junk, and that it has to be saved by Knots.

Bitcoin is hard to kill. And one of it's strenghts, what makes Bitcoin so hard to kill is the large number of nodes willing to defend Bitcoin. Knots is not saving Bitcoin, Knots has been up and running since 2011. It's been dormant this whole time until last year when it became obvious that core was actively cannibalizing Bitcoin.

So no, Knots is not saving Bitcoin, the 10,000 nodes running Knots are saving Bitcoin.
Join the fight.

The thing is, in the end, I always hear the same argument about pedophilia.

I don't think the operation Epstein was conducting was about pedophilia per say. It was a blackmail operation. If you went on his island and you were more into goats than into kids, he probably would get you a goat. Or a gay black man. Or a dwarf, or whatever you'd be into.

And the fact it, Andy Back went to the island, and a few others are being very evasive about it. Like Greg Maxwell for example. Ask him if he's been to the island and you will get an evasive answer.

I always get the impression that this Luke guy wants to follow the same path as that other guy from Bitcoin Cash.

You'd be wrong. Luke has no intension of doing a hard fork and surrendering Bitcoin to degenerate jpeg scammers. Neither do I, nor anyone else I talked with on my side.

What fascinates me is that core actively invited malware on Bitcoin by rejecting a malware filter. And core further redefined Bitcoin as a file sharing network by blowing up an existing malware filter.

And anyone who pushes back against this necessarily has to be part of some weird cult? Seriously?

[ABCbits]

Interesting! Thank you for that. Here is what I observed:
--snip--
Second to last one was 27 days ago:
https://mempool.space/tx/00000000000ad99639585eb5fb0dc0bb093575719ecd78cfede972637b65de07
It contained 2 op_return and total size was 184kB. Non-standard, not seen in mempool. This is pure garbage, a direct submission via Slipstream malware to Mara. I'm glad BIP110 will block this kind of bullshit.
--snip--
One was obvious malware, and the other two were sending 800 and 1000 sats.

What is wrong with you? While there's no need to create this TX (because someone else already did it many years ago), why do you call Bitcoin whitepaper as "pure garbage", "this kind of bullshit" and "malware"?

0.0000165% of transactions sent to P2PK addresses in the last 6 weeks.
99.99985% of transactions in the last 6 weeks would be exempt from this BIP110 restriction.

99.99985% is non-sense.

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

Aside from P2PK output, this part also treat few other type of output as invalid.

[PepeLapiu]

What is wrong with you? While there's no need to create this TX (because someone else already did it many years ago), why do you call Bitcoin whitepaper as "pure garbage", "this kind of bullshit" and "malware"?

Stop being retarded.
I don't call the white paper pure trash or garbage. I call the following tx pure garbage and malware we need to stomp out:
https://mempool.space/tx/00000000000ad99639585eb5fb0dc0bb093575719ecd78cfede972637b65de07

It contains two op_returns which shows you the transaction is malware and garbage. Non-standard, not seen in mempool. Obviously a direct submission to Mara's Slipstream. This is precisely one of the things we need to attack.

The content of the file us not relevant. If it had been a cute puppy jpeg, calling it garbage does not mean I hate puppies.
Stop being retarded.

0.0000165% of transactions sent to P2PK addresses in the last 6 weeks.
99.99985% of transactions in the last 6 weeks would be exempt from this BIP110 restriction.

99.99985% is non-sense.

It's not. You do the math yourself. If we approximate 3000 txs per block, that is results in ~18.1 million txs in the last 6 weeks. Only 3 of them had P2PK outputs. That translates to 99.99985% of the last 6 weeks txs not affected by that part of BIP110 that prevents spending to P2PK addresses.

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

Aside from P2PK output, this part also treat few other type of output as invalid.

Yes, and they are all spam.

My point is that ertil and Maxwell bitching about BIP110 banning P2PK outputs is pure obstructionism. Because in the last 6 weeks, nobody send to a P2PK address for monetary purpose. Furthermore this restriction won't confiscate anything. It merely prevents you from sending to P2PK addresses.

[joker_josue]

So no, Knots is not saving Bitcoin, the 10,000 nodes running Knots are saving Bitcoin.
Join the fight.

I will not get into senseless wars.

Not least because to this day there is no logical argument for this type of fight.

[PepeLapiu]

I will not get into senseless wars.

Not least because to this day there is no logical argument for this type of fight.

Of course if you agree with core turning bitcoin into a dickbutt.jpeg sharing platform, there is no need for you to fight for anything.

[joker_josue]

Of course if you agree with core turning bitcoin into a dickbutt.jpeg sharing platform, there is no need for you to fight for anything.

It is extremely this type of argument that I do not agree with.

I don't agree that blockchain should be used for records other than transaction records, at least not in a massive way.
Now, I think this argument that this should be fought because there will only be dickbutt.jpeg.

Suggested approach to me doesn't make sense, much less the argument.

Especially because this will probably be the smallest of the type of content that will appear.

In addition, the way they want to fight it could open doors for governments to seek to control Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

What is wrong with you? While there's no need to create this TX (because someone else already did it many years ago), why do you call Bitcoin whitepaper as "pure garbage", "this kind of bullshit" and "malware"?

Stop being retarded.
I don't call the white paper pure trash or garbage. I call the following tx pure garbage and malware we need to stomp out:
https://mempool.space/tx/00000000000ad99639585eb5fb0dc0bb093575719ecd78cfede972637b65de07

It contains two op_returns which shows you the transaction is malware and garbage. Non-standard, not seen in mempool. Obviously a direct submission to Mara's Slipstream. This is precisely one of the things we need to attack.

The content of the file us not relevant. If it had been a cute puppy jpeg, calling it garbage does not mean I hate puppies.
Stop being retarded.

First OP_RETURN output contain text "Bitcoin Whitepaper ₿📜⛓️🕰️♥️ ". It's definitely not malware or malware signature.
Second OP_RETURN is Bitcoin paper. I use command from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5584089.msg66769574#msg66769574 to extract the data to PDF file. Then i use DiffPDF to compare it with https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, where it says the PDF looks same. The SHA-256 hash of both files are different, but most likely it's not not malware or contain malware signature.

0.0000165% of transactions sent to P2PK addresses in the last 6 weeks.
99.99985% of transactions in the last 6 weeks would be exempt from this BIP110 restriction.

99.99985% is non-sense.

It's not. You do the math yourself. If we approximate 3000 txs per block, that is results in ~18.1 million txs in the last 6 weeks. Only 3 of them had P2PK outputs. That translates to 99.99985% of the last 6 weeks txs not affected by that part of BIP110 that prevents spending to P2PK addresses.

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

Aside from P2PK output, this part also treat few other type of output as invalid.

Yes, and they are all spam.

When you say "from this BIP110 restriction.", such restriction doesn't only apply to new P2PK output (see what quoted from BIP 110  directly), that's why i say the percentage is non-sense.

[PepeLapiu]

It is extremely this type of argument that I do not agree with.
I don't agree that blockchain should be used for records other than transaction records, at least not in a massive way.
Now, I think this argument that this should be fought because there will only be dickbutt.jpeg.
Suggested approach to me doesn't make sense, much less the argument.
Especially because this will probably be the smallest of the type of content that will appear.
In addition, the way they want to fight it could open doors for governments to seek to control Bitcoin.

Let me ask you some questions. And feel free to answer them here. But most importantly, try to at least answer them for yourself

As I already explained before the average monetary Segwit discount is around 35%.
The average ordinal Segwit discount is around 75%.
That effectively means monetary users end up paying 2.6x more in miner fees than the malware asshole are paying per transaction size.
This means that core talking heads have been lying to you all along when they told you over and over that "the fees should be the only filter"

Doesn't that bother you? Why have they lied to you about that for the last 4-5 years?

Greg Maxwell tells you, in an effort to keep the BIP110 confiscation FUD going, that if you delete your keys as part of a convoluted anti-hijaking scheme nobody would ever bother with, you could lose your coin, and you get to blame BIP110.

Doesn't that bother you that a former core dev came out of retirement to gaslight you about BIP110 confiscating sats?

Just before the current malware attack started in 2023, the core devs changed th Sir documentation as to remove all definitions of bitcoin as money, in 2022. And in 2024 they changed the definition of -datacarriersize in their documentation, which would effectively make ordinals not a bug anymore, therefore core doesn't need to do anything about the ordinal bug.

Do you believe in coincidences? Are you a coincidence theorist?

And finally, doesn't it bother you that the very same people who tell you that spam can't be stopped are also getting busy removing existing filters and rejecting new filters?

First OP_RETURN output contain text "Bitcoin Whitepaper ₿📜⛓️🕰️♥️ ". It's definitely not malware or malware signature.

Yes, it absolutely is malware, or spam. Files of any kind do not belong on chain. You don't get to say that just because you like the document of the picture, that it's no longer malware or spam. It is malware, it is spam.

Bitcoin is a monetary network, not a fucking everything sharing network.

Furthermore, someone else already posted the white paper on chain. How many copies do you need?

When you say "from this BIP110 restriction.", such restriction doesn't only apply to new P2PK output (see what quoted from BIP 110  directly), that's why i say the percentage is non-sense.

Maxwell and ertil were bitching about P2PK outputs being prevented by BIP110, and both making a big deal of it. But those make up 0.0000165% of all transactions in the last 6 weeks. And they are all spam/malware or suspiciously low amounts of sats.

[joker_josue]

I have no problem answering questions.
Now answering ironic questions is difficult, because they are so subjective
But I'll try.

Doesn't that bother you? Why have they lied to you about that for the last 4-5 years?

I don't know who's fooling who
I don't even know how long you've been on bitcoin

What I do know, with regard to fees, is that not even in 2013 when I got into Bitcoin were the fees as low as they are today.

So what I know is that this issue of fees is a false issue. In addition to thinking that the solution they want to implement is not the best.

Doesn't that bother you that a former core dev came out of retirement to gaslight you about BIP110 confiscating sats?

So I guess I would find it strange for an old dev to come back to criticize the bip110
If he had come back to support, he could have made me review this idea of bip110. Now if it's ugly to criticize, maybe it's not to deceive.

I ask, if Satoshi came to criticize, would you also find it strange?
 

Do you believe in coincidences? Are you a coincidence theorist?

And finally, doesn't it bother you that the very same people who tell you that spam can't be stopped are also getting busy removing existing filters and rejecting new filters?

You are the one who seems to be a theorist of coincidences.

Regarding removing or introducing spam filters, this is rhetoric.
Before this spam that you talk about, there are spam records before all these filters that you say are removed.

But, do you know why it didn't work? It doesn't pay off. And it will continue not to compensate.

 

[PepeLapiu]

I have no problem answering questions.

You obviously do have a problem answering me questions because you went out of your way to dodge every single one of them.

If Satoshi, or anyone else for that matter, told me that if I delete my keys, I get to blame BIP110 for the lost of my coin, that would be very very suspicious.

The same people who tell you spam can't be stopped also get busy calling it "use cases we have today" instead of calling it what it is: malware. And they get busy rejecting new filters and removing existing ones.

[joker_josue]

I have no problem answering questions.

You obviously do have a problem answering me questions because you went out of your way to dodge every single one of them

I didn't dodge the questions. The questions were on an ironic basis and on theory, rather than concrete things.

So I still see more speculative arguments than concrete ones.