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

[BlackHatCoiner]

BCH actually had a lot more hashrate percentage (and a ton more support) then 110.

Not lucky enough to sell fork coins for bitcoin, I guess.

Fallacy (straw man argument). Even if there are some nodes that don't validate all the rules, it doesn't mean that all blocks they don't reject are valid in the Bitcoin P2P network. For example, pre-SegWit nodes may accept (instead of rejecting) invalid blocks.

If majority of hashrate was mining post-SegWit invalid blocks, then the pre-SegWit network would carry the most hashrate. The reason SegWit did not result in a chain split is because it received hashrate majority support, and post-SegWit nodes enforced their rules on the pre-SegWit network. Thank you for confirming that you need hashrate majority or else it is a chain split.

[athanred]

not by the cartel of mining pools or some central committee of hash-providers at their sole discretion

You need some miners on your side. Otherwise, you have to subtract that hashrate from your calculations. If you introduce a change, which is ignored by 99% miners, and you reject their blocks, then your chain will be much slower. And the speed of BIP-110 chain can be easily measured by counting signalling blocks, because after block number 961,632, your client will reject all non-signalling blocks, even if 99% hashrate will keep making them.

You can always change the code, but you cannot force people to mine your chain. If you manage a company, and fire 99% employees, then you have to do their job by yourself.

[PrivacyG]

I assume at least those, who signal for BIP-110, will keep mining it. But of course, it is possible, that all of them will stop, after seeing non-signalling blocks for a few hours.

The Preg army duo, as in Pepe and Greg, will continue to fight really hard against those damn dick butts!  Particularly Greg, considering his urge to always bring sexuality into discussion.  Dick butts will have NO chance on that dead chain against a straight BIP-110 supporter!

[DaveF]

As I have said before still kicking myself for not dumping BCH as soon as the fork happened. Live and learn.

Optimal time was a fair bit after.

Yeah, early 2018 which in my mind was still soon after the fork and in the middle of all the forks coming out.
I really thought that it would stay up there for much longer and go much higher.

Sucks to be me.


As for the gambling I understand your theory of the swap instead of the bet.

But making it a bet allows someone to give the lukecoin people some really good odds in their favor and when they still don't take those bets it just shows them to be the no-coiners that they really are.

40 days till they leave. Who will we poke fun of after that?

-Dave

[Greg Tonoski]

Fallacy (straw man argument). Even if there are some nodes that don't validate all the rules, it doesn't mean that all blocks they don't reject are valid in the Bitcoin P2P network. For example, pre-SegWit nodes may accept (instead of rejecting) invalid blocks.

If majority of hashrate was mining post-SegWit invalid blocks, then the pre-SegWit network would carry the most hashrate. The reason SegWit did not result in a chain split is because it received hashrate majority support, and post-SegWit nodes enforced their rules on the pre-SegWit network. Thank you for confirming that you need hashrate majority or else it is a chain split.

You got it backwards. It's not like "hashrate majority" delivered a verdict of chain-split-not and support for SegWit. It was akin to "hashrate majority" obeyed the verdict delivered by the network (even though hashrate oligarchs had signalled their opposition before).

not by the cartel of mining pools or some central committee of hash-providers at their sole discretion

You need some miners on your side. (...) If you manage a company, and fire 99% employees, then you have to do their job by yourself.

Disagree. Anybody can be a miner in Bitcoin and so you don't need to ask specifically Foundry or Ant Pool or MARA for their permission in order for Bitcoin to thrive (including soft-forks activation). There isn't any privilege designed for an oversized miner in Bitcoin. BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

[athanred]

BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

You need to create 2016 blocks with the previous difficulty, to decrease it four times. The less hashrate you have, the longer it would take to adjust. Which is also why we don't have new soft-forks every day, when any developer feels like it.

you don't need to ask specifically Foundry or Ant Pool or MARA for their permission

If you reject their blocks as invalid, then you have to subtract their hashrate from your calculations.

[Greg Tonoski]

BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

Which [hashpower volatility] is also why we don't have new soft-forks every day, when any developer feels like it.

Incorrect. It is not hashpower volatility that influences soft-forks in Bitcoin and prevents them from taking effect. Also, "developers" don't make soft-forks happen in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized. Drops in hashrate total amount are neutral.

[MarGomez]

Hi guys! First post here! In fact I joined specifically because I wanted to post in this thread.

This is just another bitcoin knot spam

Why do BIP-110 proponents need so many topics on bitcointalk, about the same thing?

There is a soft fork happening in a month. Yet the Bitcoin original forum makes no mention of it on it's first two pages. Nothing at all, ziltch, nada, zero!

And the amazing thing about it all is that you people think that's already too much, boring, spam, annoyance.

This is a forum, you pick the subjects that interest you, and you get to ignore those subjects that don't interest you. I in fact had to go to the 3rd page to find the thread that interests me. You know what I did not do with all the threads I have no interest in?
- I did not insult them and tell them I am annoyed with them.
- I did not bother to even click those threads, much less post anything on them.

You two should look into doing the same.

The following post, for some reason, earned the most merit on this thread:

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.

You have said absolutely nothing productive. Simply throwing insults at BIP110 and calling it moronic, that is not constructive in any way. On the level of saying "My daddy can beat up your daddy"

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.

This is very unproductive. You all seem busy throwing around allegations, predictions, insults, and absolutely nothing to say about BIP110's merits.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You have said absolutely nothing productive. Simply throwing insults at BIP110 and calling it moronic, that is not constructive in any way. On the level of saying "My daddy can beat up your daddy"

I can think of nothing less productive than debating BIP110. Literally, I can't articulate how many better things I have to do than try to explain the obvious to a bunch of incompetent people who claim to be Bitcoiners, yet don't know how information spreads or what a soft fork is.

I have already wasted far too much energy writing constructive posts about this absolutely crazy idea you are thinking of pulling off. Reference me on those if you can't get my sense of humor.

[DaveF]

This is very unproductive. You all seem busy throwing around allegations, predictions, insults, and absolutely nothing to say about BIP110's merits.

Because it has no merits.


And in 33 or 34 days its going to be a dead fork.
Nothing more.

There are under 1% of blocks signaling support for 110 as of now.

Nobody who uses BTC cares about it.

And, what @BlackHatCoiner said.

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

There is a soft fork happening in a month. Yet the Bitcoin original forum makes no mention of it on it's first two pages. Nothing at all, ziltch, nada, zero!

And the amazing thing about it all is that you people think that's already too much, boring, spam, annoyance.

It is a horrible and incredibly damaging proposal which has already been discussed at length, the incredible thing is its authors and proponents total unwillingness to engage in discussion about it's flaws and their consistent use of dishonesty and other deception to promote it.

This is a forum, you pick the subjects that interest you, and you get to ignore those subjects that don't interest you.

You seem to have confused interest with support. Everyone in these threads is interested in 110-- most just do not support it.

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.

This is very unproductive. You all seem busy throwing around allegations, predictions, insults, and absolutely nothing to say about BIP110's merits.

You're demonstrating poor netiquette by wading into a forum that is foreign to you and complaining about its residents when you apparently haven't made an effort to read the existing discussion.  Comments expressing opposition to 110 are useful information, your meta-commentary complaining about other people's interaction is not.

If you are interested in the subject there are many past threads here you can read, here is a quick index to prior discussions here and elsewhere which you should probably be familiar with if you want to contribute to the discussion.  It's by no means comprehensive or carefully generated, but it might give you a starting point.

================================================================================
A. TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS
================================================================================

A1. BIP-110 DOES NOT STOP SPAM -- IMMEDIATELY PROVEN INEFFECTIVE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Todd embedded the entire text of BIP-110 (then BIP-444)
into a BIP-110-compliant transaction on mainnet within days of
the proposal.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
  https://thabitcoinmanual.com/articles/bip-444/

knotslies.com stored a 66KB contiguous TIFF image
in a BIP-110-compliant transaction, proving the "contiguous data"
claim is false and the restrictions are bypassable.
  https://knotslies.com/

Murch showed that BIP-110 would only reject ~1.1% of transactions
and ~2.76% of "non-monetary" transactions, accepting 97.24% of
what proponents call spam.
  https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2062975049305608555
  https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2062238171681927509

The restrictions actively make UTXO bloat WORSE: spammers split
data into fake P2TR outputs, which go into the UTXO set (unlike
OP_RETURN which is prunable). knotslies.com calculates this
increases node storage by 95% for the same spam data.
  https://knotslies.com/

A2. CONSENSUS BUG -- SCRIPT-EXECUTION CACHE POISONING
------------------------------------------------------
L0RINC found a fatal consensus flaw in the BIP-110 implementation:
script-execution cache poisoning via activation-boundary reorg.
The bug went undetected for months.
  https://x.com/L0RINC/status/1893497438234234846 (approx)
  https://x.com/bitschmidty/status/2022271605984944290
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

A3. CONFISCATORY -- FREEZES AND DESTROYS FUNDS
-----------------------------------------------
gmaxwell (bitcointalk, Nov 3, 2025 - Jun 2026): Presigned
timelocked transactions create new UTXOs when they mature, which
are NOT grandfathered. BIP-110 makes these unspendable.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5563694.14
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.8
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579958.7

BitMEXResearch (X, Jun 18-28, 2026): "BIP-110 freezes coins and
in certain scenarios enables coin theft. I know personally of
people who would have their coins stolen."
  https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2071344957458116638
  https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2067750482576130405

ertil (bitcointalk, May 6 - Jun 3, 2026): Second-party sweep
scenario -- a blocked spending path plus an unblocked alternative
path (e.g. inheritance/charity) means funds are stolen, not
merely frozen.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5582273.2
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5584529.30

A4. BREAKS MINISCRIPT AND WALLET FUNCTIONALITY
-----------------------------------------------
The BIP itself admits "potential Miniscript breakage."
or_d, or_i, or_c, andor, d:, j: -- ALL conditional miniscript
fragments -- compile to OP_IF/OP_NOTIF. There is no OP_IF-free
alternative for conditional logic in miniscript.
  Source: src/script/miniscript.h:780-799 (verified in Knots source)
  https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/f41f01e1e6de7025d52a865bef97f2a67277f0f3/src/script/miniscript.h#L780-L799

BIP-388 (a standards document) uses or_d as its EXAMPLE inheritance
policy. The standard advice, when followed, produces BIP-110-invalid
scripts.
  https://bips.dev/388/

Knots' own wallet produces BIP-110-invalid scripts silently
 https://x.com/FarsideUK/status/2071953401076744275

A5. BREAKS SATOSHI-ERA SCRIPT TYPES
------------------------------------
BIP-110 bans new P2PK outputs (uncompressed keys > 34 bytes).
Satoshi used P2PK. Timelocked transactions paying to P2PK become
unspendable.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583540.18 (ertil)
  https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2063958721919664381

BIP-110 also bans bare multisig outputs > 34 bytes, which have
been standard since BIP-11 (2011).
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583540 (ertil)

A6. DESTROYS FORWARD COMPATIBILITY AND UPGRADE HOOKS
-----------------------------------------------------
BIP-110 bans spending undefined witness versions (Rule 3) and
OP_SUCCESS* opcodes (Rule 6). These are the forward-compatibility
mechanisms that make it safe to deploy future soft forks (e.g.
post-quantum signatures).
  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki

gmaxwell: "The limitations on script in BIP110 go far beyond
op_if, basically outlawing all but the simplest payments."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579958.7

A7. HINDERS INNOVATION (BITVM, COVENANTS)
------------------------------------------
BIP-110's 257-byte control block limit (Rule 5) constrains
Taproot tree depth to 7 levels (128 leaves). This impairs
BitVM and complex covenant constructions that rely on large
script trees.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
  https://phemex.com/news/article/bip110-proposal-raises-concerns-over-bitcoins-upgrade-path-66690

================================================================================
B. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS
================================================================================

B1. LOW ACTIVATION THRESHOLD (55%) IS DANGEROUS
------------------------------------------------
Standard BIP9 threshold is 95%. BIP-110 uses 55%, dramatically
increasing chain split risk.
  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki

gmaxwell: "55% is very low in the face of modest numbers of other
(non-mining) participants supporting it and is IMO unacceptably
likely to get wiped out or result in long reorgs."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5572483.17

B2. MANDATORY SIGNALING / UASF IS COERCIVE
-------------------------------------------
At block 961,632, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected.
This is not voluntary signaling -- it is forced activation.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

Lopp: "This is not a neutral, low-drama deployment posture. It's
dogmatic bullying: 'enforce our rules or your blocks get orphaned
by our nodes.'"
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

B3. NO REPLAY PROTECTION
-------------------------
Unlike BCH/BSV hard forks, BIP-110 is a soft fork with no replay
protection. Transactions are valid on both chains, creating
double-spend risk and making it difficult for users to split coins.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5572483.3 (gmaxwell mentions)
  Murch discusses UTXO splitting requirements:
  https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2062582280489681138

B4. ZERO MINER SUPPORT
-----------------------
At time of writing, miner signaling is ~0.31% (5 EH/s out of ~700+).
F2Pool (10%+ hashrate) explicitly rejected it.
  https://x.com/satofishi (Wang Chun: "No way we'll signal BIP-110")
  https://news.bitcoin.com/bip-110-pushes-bitcoin-toward-august-fork-deadline-with-only-5-eh-s-signaling/

B5. NO ECONOMIC SUPPORT
------------------------
No exchanges have committed to listing BIP-110 coins. Prediction
markets price BIP-110 at 98% chance of failure. No proponents
have put meaningful BTC behind their convictions.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
  Lopp's open wager offer (no takers):
  https://nostr.ae/nevent1qqsvegvp0kw8c7c70yptgnuurl2uqhmshj0uzzkc3m84uufemqpqf5qprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0qgs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsrqsqqqqqpl7rkms

B6. BYPASSED STANDARD REVIEW PROCESS
--------------------------------------
BIP-110 was not developed through the normal Bitcoin improvement
process. It was pushed via a pseudonymous author (Dathon Ohm)
with Luke Dashjr as the actual author (confirmed by git history).
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5584529.74 (gmaxwell)

B7. "TEMPORARY" IS A POLITICAL TROJAN HORSE
--------------------------------------------
Lopp: "There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution."
No one believes proponents will let it expire. Proponents openly
discuss making it permanent.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

PepeLapiu (bitcointalk): "Consider it a nice warning before we make
BIP110 rules permanent."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579958.26

BIP-110's own website says it "can be refined or extended based on
community feedback" -- acknowledging it may not be temporary.
  https://bip110.org/

================================================================================
C. MORAL / PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS
================================================================================

C1. VIOLATES BITCOIN'S NEUTRALITY
----------------------------------
Bitcoin is designed to be a neutral, permissionless system. BIP-110
introduces subjective judgments about which transactions are
"monetary" and which are "spam" at the consensus level.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
  https://coinalertnews.com/news/2026/03/16/bitcoin-bip-110-governance-crisis-adam-back

Adam Back: "an intentional literal downgrade" that "breaks
userspace" and lets a group "judge and control which scripts or
use cases can be built."
  https://u.today/adam-back-warns-bitcoin-community-of-literal-downgrade-why-bip-110-being-labeled-trojan-horse-for
  https://cryptobriefing.com/bip-110-fork-fail-activate-adam-back/

C2. SLIPPERY SLOPE TO CENSORSHIP
---------------------------------
If BIP-110 succeeds, it establishes the precedent that consensus
rules can be changed to ban subjectively "undesirable" use cases.
What stops the next fork from banning mixing, Lightning, or
specific addresses?
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

C3. INVITES REGULATORY CAPTURE
-------------------------------
By demonstrating Bitcoin CAN be changed to filter content, BIP-110
invites governments to pressure the small set of entities that
can push such changes. Neutrality is the best regulatory defense.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

C4. CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY IS THEFT
--------------------------------------
Making people's coins unspendable is confiscation regardless of
intent. Users who followed standard custody advice lose funds
through no fault of their own.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.8 (gmaxwell)
  Satofan44 (bitcointalk): "It is theft. Whether you take away my
  property to use it yourself, or you simply prevent my access to
  it permanently, that is a semantic distinction that is
  meaningless."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5572483 (Feb 4, 2026)

C5. PROPONENTS' BAD FAITH AND DISHONESTY
-----------------------------------------
gmaxwell: "The authors don't reply to these criticisms at all, or
just call people raising them pedophiles."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.8

PepeLapiu repeatedly denied any risk existed while the BIP itself
admits the risks. Proponents called confiscation concerns "FUD"
and "bad faith" while refusing to address the technical substance.
  https://x.com/GrassFedBitcoin/status/2054262132557193526

Employees of ocean mining, particularly Bitcoin Mechanic, continually
use stolen/sockpuppet accounts and make false claims of censorship
when their own intentional bad conduct gets their posts removed:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585783.msg66837021#msg66837021

C6. CULT-LIKE BEHAVIOR AND MANUFACTURED SUPPORT
------------------------------------------------
Lopp: "A lot of the movement is manufactured. I've confronted and
unmasked many AI bots on both X and nostr that were spewing
BIP-110 talking points."
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

Node count inflation via free Tor addresses (4:1 Tor:IPv4 ratio
for Knots nodes vs 1.7:1 for non-Knots) suggests Sybil behavior.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/


================================================================================
D. ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS
================================================================================

D1. MINERS HAVE NO RATIONAL REASON TO SUPPORT IT
-------------------------------------------------
BIP-110 reduces transaction fees (by blocking some transactions).
Miners are paid by fees. Supporting BIP-110 is a voluntary pay cut.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

D2. MINORITY HASHRATE FORK IS ECONOMICALLY DOOMED
--------------------------------------------------
At ~1% hashrate (Ocean only), the BIP-110 chain would produce
~1-2 blocks/day. Coinbase rewards take 50+ days to become spendable.
Exchanges would require enormous confirmation counts. Difficulty
adjustment takes ~3 years.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

Murch: "At current hashrate signaling, 'Luke's Bitcoin' will have
one block every other day, and Bitcoin will have ~287 blocks in
two days."
  https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2061509820151370158

D3. ARCHER V. COINBASE MEANS NO EXCHANGE LISTINGS
---------------------------------------------------
Per Archer v. Coinbase ruling, exchanges have no obligation to
support fork coins. Unlike the 2017 fork explosion, exchanges
won't list BIP-110 coins. This removes economic incentive for
the fork to persist.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585356.10 (gmaxwell)

D4. DAMAGE TO BITCOIN'S REPUTATION
-----------------------------------
BIP-110 signals that Bitcoin's rules can be changed to censor
subjectively undesirable transactions. This erodes confidence in
Bitcoin as predictable, permissionless money.
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

D5. BIP-110 PROPONENTS ARE NO/LOW-COINERS
------------------------------------------
gmaxwell: BIP-110 is "a nocoiner/fewcoiner movement primarily."
Lopp: proponents "have no financial conviction in the success of
the movement."
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5572483.53 (gmaxwell)
  https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

gmaxwell offered to trade his non-110 coins for 110 coins at
favorable rates. No proponent accepted.
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.14
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.27

[ABCbits]

There is a soft fork happening in a month. Yet the Bitcoin original forum makes no mention of it on it's first two pages. Nothing at all, ziltch, nada, zero!

It's probably because it was discussed a lot, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5565808.msg66845077#msg66845077.

You have said absolutely nothing productive.

If you want more productive discussion, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5563694.0. I assume you consider critic or question as something productive.

[Greg Tonoski]

Simply throwing insults at BIP110 and calling it moronic, that is not constructive in any way. On the level of saying "My daddy can beat up your daddy"

I agree. BIP-110 is important and needs honest, intelligent comments instead of trolls' slop (insulting, calling it moronic etc.). I have tracked BIP-110 discussions since its inception and there isn't any technical objection to the BIP-110. To the contrary, the BIP-110 has a great deal of merit. Unlike SegWit and Taproot, BIP-110 has minimal scope so it is much more feasible to verify it.

(...)

This is very unproductive. You all seem busy throwing around allegations, predictions, insults, and absolutely nothing to say about BIP110's merits.

I agree. That's typical behaviour of all trolls from the Blockstream farm: Gregory Maxwell, Andy Back and so on (their plan for their scam Simplicity is shattered as a result of the BIP-110) . Bad actors must be called out.

[DaveF]

I have tracked BIP-110 discussions since its inception and there isn't any technical objection to the BIP-110. To the contrary, the BIP-110 has a great deal of merit. Unlike SegWit and Taproot, BIP-110 has minimal scope so it is much more feasible to verify it.

You are a troll at this point.

2 posts above here @gmaxwell made a great list of of technical and other things that are wrong with 110
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.msg66910219#msg66910219

I know you read it because you quoted it.

We also know the following:

1) you have no BTC
2) You don't mine BTC
3) You don't want to put any money into BTC and just want free coins somehow.
4) In 32 or 33 days from this post 110 will fork off into it's own coin and never recover.

But either way we will keep coming here and pointing out that you are wrong to hopefully make sure nobody else joins your no coin cult.

-Dave

[marto25]

The chain split question here is the crux of the disagreement, and it's worth being precise. BIP-110 behaves like a soft-fork only if it achieves sufficient hashrate enforcement — otherwise nodes enforcing it will reject blocks that the majority chain considers valid, effectively placing themselves on a minority chain. That's not a theoretical edge case, it's the mechanical outcome at current signalling levels (~1%).

The SegWit comparison doesn't fully apply here because SegWit had broad miner coordination before activation. BIP-110 doesn't appear to have that, which changes the risk calculus significantly.

The underlying concern about OP_RETURN bloat and arbitrary data in the blockchain is legitimate — storing malware signatures or questionable content in a permissionless ledger is a real problem. But a soft-fork that splits off 99% of hashrate doesn't solve that problem, it just creates a separate, less-secured chain that still contains all the historical data anyway.

[Greg Tonoski]

The chain split question here is the crux of the disagreement, and it's worth being precise. BIP-110 behaves like a soft-fork only if it achieves sufficient hashrate enforcement — otherwise nodes enforcing it will reject blocks that the majority chain considers valid, effectively placing themselves on a minority chain. That's not a theoretical edge case, it's the mechanical outcome at current signalling levels (~1%).

Incorrect. The BIP-110 is a soft-fork independently of "hashrate enforcement" and does not prescribe any split of the chain. As a side note, none of miners announced a plan to split a chain around the date of activation of the BIP-110. There isn't any announcement of rejection of the BIP-110 by any miner. To the contrary, all miners allow for the possibility of adopting soft-forks and the BIP-110, in particular. F2Pool released a vague statement that they wouldn't signal for the activation by miners (MASF) and so they adapted to the rest of the Bitcoin P2P network (UASF).

SegWit had broad miner coordination before activation.

Not true.

The underlying concern about OP_RETURN bloat and arbitrary data in the blockchain is legitimate — storing malware signatures or questionable content in a permissionless ledger is a real problem.

I agree.

But a soft-fork that splits off 99% of hashrate doesn't solve that problem, it just creates a separate, less-secured chain that still contains all the historical data anyway.

Disagree. The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain. Besides, there hasn't been any other proposal to tackle the problem of the  OP_RETURN and similar vulnerabilities. It shows that Bitcoiners concluded that the BIP-110 is better than a hypothetical alternative one.

[DaveF]

SegWit had broad miner coordination before activation.

Not true.

100% true

From: https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling because they have nice charts.
As of now miners signaling for 110 is under 1%



The same period for 141 / segwit well over 40%



110 is going to crash and burn.

-Dave

[marto25]

The soft-fork label doesn't automatically prevent a chain split — it depends on whether miners enforce the new rules. With BIP-110 signalling below 1%, nodes enforcing it will reject blocks that the majority hashrate considers valid. That's a de facto minority chain, regardless of intent.

The SegWit parallel holds: not because of miner coordination specifically, but because signalling at comparable stages was orders of magnitude higher, reflecting genuine ecosystem consensus. That consensus isn't visible here yet.

The OP_RETURN problem is real. The mechanism may be sound. The timing and support level are the issue.

[Greg Tonoski]

The soft-fork label doesn't automatically prevent a chain split — it depends on whether miners enforce the new rules.

Incorrect. Miners don't enforce the rules. They don't have any privilege in the Bitcoin P2P network. Either they submit to the rules or they quit the network.

A chain split attempt can be launched at any time. The time of activation of a soft-fork is not an exception.

(...) BIP-110 (...) nodes enforcing it will reject blocks (...)

I agree. The nodes will enforce the rules.

The SegWit parallel holds: not because of miner coordination specifically, but because signalling at comparable stages was orders of magnitude higher, reflecting genuine ecosystem consensus. That consensus isn't visible here yet.

Disagree. None of miners announced quitting the network by the BIP-110 activation. There isn't any resistance to the BIP-110 unlike the case of SegWit ("Those people forked off because they didn't want SegWit. Nobody is threatening to fork off [today] because they don't want BIP110. One could conclude Segwit had an active resistance while BIP110 just has angry tweets opposing it. BIP110 has more consensus than Segwit" - Roughnecks miners.)

The OP_RETURN problem is real. The mechanism may be sound. The timing and support level are the issue.

I agree and think that the sooner the BIP-110 is activated the better. Moreover, I can see high level of support among Bitcoiners.

[DaveF]

The SegWit parallel holds: not because of miner coordination specifically, but because signalling at comparable stages was orders of magnitude higher, reflecting genuine ecosystem consensus. That consensus isn't visible here yet.

Disagree. None of miners announced quitting the network by the BIP-110 activation. There isn't any resistance to the BIP-110 unlike the case of SegWit ("Those people forked off because they didn't want SegWit. Nobody is threatening to fork off [today] because they don't want BIP110. One could conclude Segwit had an active resistance while BIP110 just has angry tweets opposing it. BIP110 has more consensus than Segwit" - Roughnecks miners.)

https://x.com/satofishi/status/2024443832964686161
So a pool that is many many many many times larger then Ocean is actively saying they will not mine on the 110 fork.
There are others but I am too busy to look

There is no support at all for 110 anyplace other then lukes cult.

Anytime you want to make a bet as to it being the minority chain come August 10 or so let us know. Will be happy to take your money.

-Dave