[AMA] I am a proponent of the BIP-110 (a.k.a RDTS) - ask me anything

[Greg Tonoski]

I am a proponent of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 a.k.a. RDTS - Reduced Data Temporary Soft-fork, bip110.org) scheduled for activation in August 2026. I run a Bitcoin node, learn from other Bitcoiners, live a healthy lifestyle. I am male, straight. I am interested in Bitcoin's security, economics and monetary properties.

Update: I have never contacted Jeffrey Epstein.

[Karl_3000]

This is just another bitcoin knot spam, I have been seeing many topics that many of you have been posting which is not necessary at all. If you care about the health of bitcoin, you should know that BIP110 is not necessary at all.

Yes it is good to live a healthy lifestyle but stop spamming this forum with irrelevant BIP110 topics. You can discuss it on a single topic.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am an opponent of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 a.k.a. RDTS - Reduced Data Temporary Soft-fork, bip110.org) scheduled for activation in August 2026.

I run a Bitcoin node, stack sats, bully no-coiners, and my healthy lifestyle is sustained entirely by caffeine, 4L of water and beef. I am as straight male as it gets, and highly aware that this is a Bitcointalk post and not a Tinder bio.

I am interested in Bitcoin's security, economics, and protecting its monetary properties from moronic ideas like BIP-110.

[DaveF]

I am an opponent of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 a.k.a. RDTS - Reduced Data Temporary Soft-fork, bip110.org) scheduled for activation in August 2026.

I run a Bitcoin node, stack sats, bully no-coiners, and my healthy lifestyle is sustained entirely by caffeine, 4L of water and beef. I am as straight male as it gets, and highly aware that this is a Bitcointalk post and not a Tinder bio.

I am interested in Bitcoin's security, economics, and protecting its monetary properties from moronic ideas like BIP-110.

Amen. To That.

And do no forget your other thread: How to spot a No-Coiner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586295.0
Nobody who has any measurable amount of BTC would ever support 110 or any proposal that could tell them how and where and for what they could spend their BTC on.

But with their 0.2% of blocks signaling support of if this period: https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling
And that fact that most knots nodes are going to fork off in 44 days from this post https://jlopp.github.io/knotzi-death-march/
It does not really matter. Since they are going to go off on their own chain. And as the saying goes. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way our.
And you will be welcome in the altcoin discussion part of this forum.

In the next couple of weeks expect to see SHA256 rental prices go though the roof as all the 110 supporters start to rent everything so they can show that there is "support" for it.

-Dave

[PrivacyG]

live a healthy lifestyle. I am male, straight

This got really dubious from one word to another.  Why does sexuality matter in the support for BIP-110?

You BIP-110 supporters are really suspicious people.

[DaveF]

live a healthy lifestyle. I am male, straight

This got really dubious from one word to another.  Why does sexuality matter in the support for BIP-110?

You BIP-110 supporters are really suspicious people.

Well they all seem to be worried about porn stored in the blockchain so you have to figure they are probably in some porn movies that they don't want people to see.
At least that is my guess.

-Dave

[PrivacyG]

Well they all seem to be worried about porn stored in the blockchain so you have to figure they are probably in some porn movies that they don't want people to see.

They are definitely bringing more attention to any porn and 'dick butt jpegs' that is stored on the Blockchain than the Blockchain itself ever did!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Has anyone verified that there's actually a 'dick butt jpeg' embedded in a transaction? Pardon me, but I don't look up porn on the blockchain on my free time, so it may as well not be true.

[DaveF]

Has anyone verified that there's actually a 'dick butt jpeg' embedded in a transaction? Pardon me, but I don't look up porn on the blockchain on my free time, so it may as well not be true.

If there is not we should put some in before 110 splits off so no matter what they will always have to have a copy of it in their blockchain.
*Well probably not since they are going to deem transactions that they don't like not worthy and probably remove them from the blockchain. They can just start from the genesis block and recreate bitcoin with only the TXs they deem worthy.


-Dave

[ABCbits]

Has anyone verified that there's actually a 'dick butt jpeg' embedded in a transaction? Pardon me, but I don't look up porn on the blockchain on my free time, so it may as well not be true.

I don't want to search and verify it, but other people claim there are different kind of questionable or illegal content.

--snip--
It's just an example that i remember right away, there are all kinds of data stored on Bitcoin even since a decade ago[1]. Should i mention that research from few years ago discover some kind of content including hundreds link to child porn[2]? Should i also mention shortly after Ordinal launch, someone use it to add porn/explicit image[3]?

If you run non-pruned Bitcoin full node, your device already store such data.

[1] https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html#ref14
[2] https://fc18.ifca.ai/preproceedings/6.pdf, section 4.3 Investigating Blockchain Files.
[3] https://crypto.news/bitcoin-ordinals-encounters-explicit-images-days-after-launch/

On a side note, i've verified there's actual malware and malware signature on Bitcoin blockchain. You can verify it on https://mempool.space/tx/85f1bf57386ff71f9e7cde9f6fc347065fa34e95389712fdc2b2fcb205273d8f?showDetails=true.

[Greg Tonoski]

On a side note, i've verified there's actual malware and malware signature on Bitcoin blockchain. You can verify it on https://mempool.space/tx/85f1bf57386ff71f9e7cde9f6fc347065fa34e95389712fdc2b2fcb205273d8f?showDetails=true.

Correct. In that transaction, the malicious spook Peter Todd deployed malware to all the nodes in the Bitcoin P2P network. Immediately afterward, he wrote and posted his tweet: "I just got a 100KvB transaction mined, full of OP_Returns containing the NASTIEST malware and viruses known to mankind, for Dos, Windows, Linux, Android, and MacOS!!!" (https://x.com/peterktodd/status/1965483876731801873). The malware can be used in a multi-stage attack on Bitcoin nodes.

Peter Todd collaborated with other malicious spooks:
- Christian Wind vel Coinjoined Chris (officer in the companies: Seedor GmbH and bitsurance GmbH; both in Germany) who wrote that he paid Peter Todd the amount of 0.001 BTC  to deploy the malware (https://x.com/coinjoined/status/1965138536652570680),
- Michele Morucci vel Metamick (officer in the company Geyser Inc registered in Delaware in a virtual office) who facilitated the money transmission in violation of the Geyser Fund terms (https://x.com/GregTonoski/status/1973771466807357936 and https://x.com/GregTonoski/status/1979567508861427881).

The attack was conducted three months after Bitcoin Core organization (maintainer Gloria Zhao vel glozow, sponsored by Brink) fast-tracked and merged the pull request 32406 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406 by Gregory Sanders vel instagibbs to demolish cap on OP_RETURN data and so further undermining Bitcoin.

In response Bitcoiners proposed the security update Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 or BIP-444 a.k.a. RDTS) and scheduled it for activation via soft-fork in August 2026.

Are there questions?

[ertil]

Are there questions?

Yes. Why do BIP-110 proponents need so many topics on bitcointalk, about the same thing? I feel like there is no aspect, which is related to that, and was not yet discussed in that topic or another. And if so, then why repeating the same things over and over again is needed? Only after the block 961,632, the situation would be clear, but probably all possible scenarios were already discussed at least once, if not multiple times.

[Greg Tonoski]

I suppose that BIP-110 proponents realize that the improvement activation is important and that's why they open topics and discuss about it.

[gmaxwell]

How many of your non-110 coins do you want to trade me for my 110 coins?  I'm willing to consider a variety of terms.

I have no use for a 110-crippled Bitcoin, and it sounds like you have no use for a 110-free non-authoritarian Bitcoin-- so we should obviously trade to the mutual satisfaction of our desires.  There is no need for any acrimony or dispute, it seems we want different things and that's fine.

Because I have absolutely no intention of ever using 110 coins except to get rid of them we should be ideal trading partners.

[Greg Tonoski]

Incorrect. All coins will remain fungible. There will not be any BIP-110-specific version of coins created in Bitcoin. The existing holders' coins will not be any different from their future ones after the BIP-110 gets activated via the soft-fork in August 2026.

Nice try, fed.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Incorrect. All coins will remain fungible. There will not be any BIP-110-specific version of coins created in Bitcoin.

It results in a chain split if it does not get majority hashrate support. Are you aware of that, or are you in the extreme delusion that it will receive majority hashrate support?

[Greg Tonoski]

There isn't any chainsplit created by the BIP-110. If rogue miners pushed invalid blocks then the blocks would be rejected (as usual).

[BlackHatCoiner]

There isn't any chainsplit created by the BIP-110. If rogue miners pushed invalid blocks then the blocks would be rejected (as usual).

Here's how it works: Your BIP110 node will start considering invalid Bitcoin transactions that are "spam". This means that if your node receives a block with "spam" included, you will reject that block. Therefore, if majority of hashrate mines with non-BIP110 rules, you're no longer on the chain with majority of hashrate!

Or maybe I'm wasting my time talking to a "straight male" Pepe alt account who can't tell what a chain split is.

[ertil]

There isn't any chainsplit created by the BIP-110.

Only if the hashrate majority will be reached, in case of a minority, the chain will always split. Any non-signalling block is rejected by all BIP-110 clients, no matter which transactions will be included. Which means, that the chain will split after block 961,632, when miners will keep producing blocks in exactly the same way, as they do today. Then, Bitcoin Core will follow the hashrate majority, whenever it would be, while Bitcoin Knots will hard-reject blocks, which are accepted today, and will force its users, to use a minority chain, supported only by miners, which will signal for BIP-110.

Current signalling is maybe around 1%. In the best case scenario, Knots would have something like 1% or 2% of the hashrate. Which means, that the rest 98% will keep mining blocks without any BIP-110 signalling, exactly as they do today. And then, Bitcoin Knots will reject the stronger chain, which will cause the split. It is simply programmed to split, because there is no "failing" condition in the code.

If rogue miners pushed invalid blocks then the blocks would be rejected (as usual).

Anyone can always make a client, which would tell "I don't like this transaction, so it is invalid". However, if new rules are enforced only by a minority, then it will result in an unsafe, minority chain, which will split from the stronger chain. There is a reason, why previous soft-forks had the "failing" path, where new rules were not activated. If Knots decide to switch to less safe chain, which is not protected by most of the miners, then it is their choice. The whitepaper works, only when the majority of miners are honest. If they are mining something you don't like, then it is your problem to find another miners, and secure your minority chain.

[Greg Tonoski]

There isn't any chainsplit created by the BIP-110. If rogue miners pushed invalid blocks then the blocks would be rejected (as usual).

Here's how it works: Your BIP110 node will start considering invalid Bitcoin transactions that are "spam". This means that if your node receives a block with "spam" included, you will reject that block. Therefore, if majority of hashrate mines with non-BIP110 rules, you're no longer on the chain with majority of hashrate!

That's not fully accurate. I agree that my node rejects an invalid block. I disagree that "if majority of hashrate mines with [invalid] non-BIP110 rules, you're no longer on the chain with majority of hashrate" is applicable in case of soft-forks (and the BIP-110 in particular). As a matter of fact, there is all hashrate on the permanent chain with BIP-110 whereas there may be non-rivalry, fugitive and ephemeral hashrate idling on a perishable block-height.

Or maybe I'm wasting my time talking to a "straight male" Pepe alt account who can't tell what a chain split is.

Do you think it is wrong to be a straight male? Isn't it natural?

A chain split is typical for hard-forks (unlike the soft-fork BIP-110). In absence of a hard-fork, there are usually observed so-called chain reorganizations ("re-org").

There isn't any chainsplit created by the BIP-110.

Only if the hashrate majority will be reached,

There isn't any such thing like majority and minority hashrate to create chainsplits in Bitcoin. In case of a chain split (as a result of a hard-fork), all hashrate operates on a chain and all hashrate operates on another chain.

(...) the chain will always split.

Would you give a real-life example in Bitcoin, please? Was there a split of a chain in case of the SegWit soft-fork in Bitcoin according to you?

Any non-signalling block is rejected by all BIP-110 clients (...). Which means, that the chain will split after block 961,632,

Incorrect. A "non-signalling blocks" could either be never produced or produced at any point in time, e.g. in block 961 666.

(...) a minority chain, supported only by miners, which will signal for BIP-110.

There isn't "a minority chain, supported only by miners, which will signal for BIP-110." The chain is neither minority or majority. The chain continues either with lower difficulty or higher (after re-adjustments) - retrospectively of amount of hashrate. BTW it is not specific to the RDTS/BIP-110 soft-fork. It applies for soft-forks in general.

(...) the rest 98% will keep mining blocks without any BIP-110 signalling, exactly as they do today.

Most of the blocks in Bitcoin were produced such that they conform with the BIP-110 (besides flipping the bit). Why wouldn't it continue?

Bitcoin Knots will reject the stronger chain, which will cause the split. It is simply programmed to split, because there is no "failing" condition in the code.

Incorrect. BIP-110 doesn't change the consensus rule about selection of the heaviest ("stronger") chain. There isn't any split caused by the BIP-110.

If rogue miners pushed invalid blocks then the blocks would be rejected (as usual).

Anyone can always make a client, which would tell "I don't like this transaction, so it is invalid". However, if new rules are enforced only by a minority, then it will result in an unsafe, minority chain

Incorrect. "Minority" is not minority on a chain. All participants enforce rules on a chain - some of them explicitly and fully (running fully validating node), some of them implicitly and softly. Also, an unsafe chain is one that can be rolled back (perish, evaporate). There isn't anything like that added by the BIP-110. To the contrary, the BIP-110 makes the chain more secure so that it doesn't perish.

If Knots decide to switch to less safe chain

There isn't anything about switching to another chain specified in the BIP-110.

The whitepaper works, only when the majority of miners are honest.

Agree. There will be the majority of miners honest, I believe.

If they are mining something you don't like, then it is your problem to find another miners, and secure your minority chain.

I agree that it is our problem when miners mine something we don't like. In particular, I dislike bulky garbage stuffed in OP_RETURN and elsewhere in transactions being mined by miners. As a solution to the problem, I find the BIP-110. Bitcoin is not a minority chain, neither pre- nor post-activation of the BIP-110.