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

[gmaxwell]

And, characteristic of these discussions, "MarGomez" seemingly vanishes after getting a bit of push back.

Unrelated, the ocean socks have been out in full force again too though deleting their posts it seems after realizing they used the wrong account. lol

Re: Greg Tonoski whom steadfastly ignores my comments and refuses to engage with my arguments but sees fit to slander and smear me in most of his posts:  In the interest of factuality, I don't have any relationship with blockstream.  I left the company in December 2017, over 7 years ago, and don't have any involvement with simplicity either other than I tested it out when they first announced it-- it seems to be an extremely useful development in terms of making formally verifiable rules for financial transactions.

I don't believe blockstream has any particular interest in this subject beyond being big investors in Bitcoin and caring that if it's trashed or not, though I wouldn't know.  If it your theory is that they are hurt by 110 because hobbling bitcoin hurts their plans related to advanced usage--- well that's not something I've seen them argue, but if it's true its yet another dramatic argument AGAINST 110 since everything they've ever discussed is financial and bitcoin centric.

You don't get to trash bitcoin's functionality and then axiomatically declare anyone who is hurt by it a pedophile friend of satan and thus there is no "actual" harm, well I suppose you do-- but not while retaining any credibility or reputation for integrity.

In any case, whatever their perspective-- I don't have anything to do with it and certainly haven't been asked by anyone there to comment on any of this.  I don't have any commercial interest in Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency beyond owning Bitcoin and caring that my bitcoin retain its value and its utility as freedom money.  And unlike so far 100% of 110 advocates I'm more than willing to trade in ways that prove my beliefs are sincere and my conviction is are solid that 110 would if it achieved its authors goals dramatically undermine Bitcoin's value proposition.

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

Not that the lukecoin people care but the multi EH/s miner that is in the DC I work in and other locations is not supporting lukecoin and from all the other miners they they have spoken with do not either. None of the pools they work with are going to support lukecoin at all. So it looks like the only people who are supporting it are renting miners and mining at Ocean.

[philipma1957]

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.

I have to say it’s nice to know you are straight male.

Myself I am married to my wife since August 1986

But I have to ask what the fuck does being a straight male have to do with bitcoin?

[marto25]

The tweet DaveF shared is more informative than any theoretical argument — a pool at that scale actively stating non-support is exactly the kind of signal that matters here, regardless of how the UASF mechanics are framed. Absence of a formal "quit" announcement doesn't equal support.

[gmaxwell]

Unrelated, the ocean socks have been out in full force again too though deleting their posts it seems after realizing they used the wrong account. lol

you're a lying and evil POS, my previous post was deleted by either you or one of your pawn admin marked as "off-topic" yesterday

Interesting that you're so confident that the comment was referring to you!    or, perhaps, not that interesting given that all but 2 of your ~27 posts have been deleted-- or are we to believe that evil mods deleted the other 23?  (If so, then maybe the old saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me 23 times shame on me"  might apply...)

I noticed the history wiping at the same time I saw the prior post, so it happened before then.

Aside, there is no way to provide a reason when deleting a post. The boilerplate notice you get when a post is removed gives a list of reasons it might have been removed.

I have no way to view who deleted what-- I have even less access than you do (as I don't get to see the notice(s) for your deleted messages, only you do), but in response to your request I've asked a global mod to look into this matter.

Edit: I heard back "From what I could see in the mod log and the recent reports page it looks like that post was reported for being off-topic and consequently deleted by a mod, you being neither of them.", so my most humble apologies for assuming the latest deletion was you similar to the other 24 other posts of yours that were deleted.  I jumped to a conclusion too hastily, thanks for the correction.

But I have to ask what the fuck does being a straight male have to do with bitcoin?

There is a whole community around luke bent out of shape when they discovered there was a woman developer and a transgendered developer.  As if the content of some internet strangers pants should be of any concern to people using fancy accounting software they write.  I had a rather bizarre phone call with luke-jr with a bunch of strange "you know..." comments suggesting that I was supposed to understand how these people's private lives somehow meant that the project was somehow irretrievably corrupt.  Regarding what people do in their offline lives: I don't know, I don't want to know and in my view the advantage of the internet is that on the internet no one knows you're a dog.

*woof*

[ABCbits]

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.

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.

Repeating same non-sense again. https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ shows so far there are only total 49 blocks signal BIP 110.

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

Based on current block data, BIP 110 behavior during this period will cause chain split to chain that signal BIP 110 and chain that doesn't.

There isn't any announcement of rejection of the BIP-110 by any miner.

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

[gmaxwell]

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

Doctrinally knotzis believe that silence is consent, but why would someone bother speak up to someone riffing on Her lips said no but her eyes said yes?

[athanred]

Regarding what people do in their offline lives: I don't know, I don't want to know and in my view the advantage of the internet is that on the internet no one knows you're a dog.

You reminded me of this: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAJHLa0Owjs=6vhy_RSD+VSAZgBq2pSYv5HhCdA4-XCGgX=Z6dA@mail.gmail.com/

As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key signed by the online entity known as "sipa."  At a bitcoin conf I met a person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claimed to be sipa, but that could have been an actor.  Absent a laborious and boring signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a supercomputing cluster of 500 gnomes.

So, now it is confirmed: the code is written by clusters of gnomes, some developers are dogs, and we have the whole zoo in the Bitcoin world.

[DaveF]

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

Doctrinally knotzis believe that silence is consent, but why would someone bother speak up to someone riffing on Her lips said no but her eyes said yes?

Greg, I'm sure you know but just in case others don't know about lukes beliefs in life.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/492ztl/lukejr_the_only_religion_people_have_a_right_to/
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1936539937748459924

With someone who thinks like that, why would anyone think that he has no problem forcing his views on BTC on others.

Side thought, we all know luke lost all those BTC when he got hacked.
Back in the the dark fuzzy part of my memory didn't luke also loose a bunch of BTC when MtGox imploded?
Don't fully remember and too lazy to go look.

-Dave

[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.

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.

Repeating same non-sense again.

The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain.

https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ shows so far there are only total 49 blocks signal BIP 110.
Based on current block data, BIP 110 behavior during this period will cause chain split to chain that signal BIP 110 and chain that doesn't.

Fallacy. Current number of block with a bit flipped is irrelevant for the BIP-110 activation. It only means that the moment of activation is the hardcoded one. BIP-110 is not a chain-split.

There isn't any announcement of rejection of the BIP-110 by any miner.

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

False. There are announcements from miners who announced adopting the BIP-110.

[DaveF]

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.

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.

Repeating same non-sense again.

The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain.

https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ shows so far there are only total 49 blocks signal BIP 110.
Based on current block data, BIP 110 behavior during this period will cause chain split to chain that signal BIP 110 and chain that doesn't.

Fallacy. Current number of block with a bit flipped is irrelevant for the BIP-110 activation. It only means that the moment of activation is the hardcoded one. BIP-110 is not a chain-split.

There isn't any announcement of rejection of the BIP-110 by any miner.

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

False. There are announcements from miners who announced adopting the BIP-110.

Everything you just said is wrong.

The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain.

By itself it does not. However all the nodes that are running never versions of knots are going to ignore / reject / discard (take your pick of wording) any mined block that does not have the bit flipped.
Which means at that point there is a 99.999 (add a large number of 9s past there) % chance of those nodes being on a different chain then 80% of the rest of them. Call it a fork / a chain split whatever. Those nodes will have a different tip then the rest of them.

Fallacy. Current number of block with a bit flipped is irrelevant for the BIP-110 activation. It only means that the moment of activation is the hardcoded one. BIP-110 is not a chain-split.

Yes it is a split, see above. You might be able to argue that knots is not 110. But there are even fewer nodes enforcing anything that 110 talks about then there are knots nodes.

False. There are announcements from miners who announced adopting the BIP-110.

Outside of people mining on Ocean, the only people who are making announcements are just that people making announcements. They have not shown any proof of hash or even proof of mining.
So they don't matter. As they say in math class, "show your work" BTC is math. So show your work. Otherwise it's just people talking.

There have been more people that can show real hashrate as a miner that have come out against 110 then have come out for it.

You Greg Tonoski are a perfect example of that. You have no BTC You have no miners. Your view of 110 does not matter, you don't mine so you don't get to vote. Because as we all know 1 cpu = 1 vote and that cpu has to be mining.

-Dave

[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.

I have to say it’s nice to know you are straight male.

Myself I am married to my wife since August 1986

Congratulations.

But I have to ask what the fuck does being a straight male have to do with bitcoin?

Bitcoiners are predominantly straight males so there might be something to it. Shitcoiners (e.g. Ethereum, Solana, Citrea) are mostly perverts.

Besides, I already answered a similar question:

I thought it may be part of the culture of the forum as some prominent members publicly announced their orientation, e.g. Ava Chow, Wladimir van der Laan (males transitioned to females).

Secondly, I want to emphasize that that the BIP-110 is not ghey.

[PrivacyG]

So BIP-110 is clearly going to crash in less than a month now as Bitcoiners keep going with Bitcoin and BIP-110 supporters fork off going with their own shiny new Shit Coin.

Every time I enter any of the Preg Topics I see the same thing over and over again.  Gmaxwell and DaveF coming up with legitimate and interesting arguments, Preg continuing to be delusionally buried in their 'BIP-110 will take over' fantasy land.

What is the point in continuing to argue it is going to be a success?  After this fails, you will only look more ridiculous the more you keep lying to your self that it is going to conquer every thing and everyone.  Do you realize shutting up right now and accepting the inevitable laughable failure makes you more believable next time Luke comes around with his newest, 'this one working for sure' Shit Coin formula?

[DaveF]

So BIP-110 is clearly going to crash in less than a month now as Bitcoiners keep going with Bitcoin and BIP-110 supporters fork off going with their own shiny new Shit Coin.

Every time I enter any of the Preg Topics I see the same thing over and over again.  Gmaxwell and DaveF coming up with legitimate and interesting arguments, Preg continuing to be delusionally buried in their 'BIP-110 will take over' fantasy land.

What is the point in continuing to argue it is going to be a success?  After this fails, you will only look more ridiculous the more you keep lying to your self that it is going to conquer every thing and everyone.  Do you realize shutting up right now and accepting the inevitable laughable failure makes you more believable next time Luke comes around with his newest, 'this one working for sure' Shit Coin formula?

Thanks for thinking that I am on the same level as Gmaxwell. But, lets face it he does most of the heavy lifting in these threads.


It's the same thing that happened with BSV and to be honest a lot of forks of other coins.
There will always be true believers that know they are correct and the 99.99% are wrong.

And they keep loosing money and wasting everyone time.

@gmaxwell posted somewhere that pointing out why they are wrong and arguing with them is a large waste of time and effort and resources. BUT, if we don't do it people might actually believe them so he goes through the same song and dance pointing out their errors. I'm more of a backup singer but I still feel like I have to make my voice heard. It's 31 days give or take a few hours from now till knots starts to fork off. After that who knows. Hopefully all these 110 / knots threads get kicked to the altcoin section never to be seen again.

Then we rest till someone comes up with something else. Then we get to do it all again.

-Dave

[ABCbits]

--snip--

The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain.

If you care about small detail, the behavior of "Mandatory signaling period" is what causing split chain. I refer to behavior that reject block that doesn't signal bit 4.

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ shows so far there are only total 49 blocks signal BIP 110.
Based on current block data, BIP 110 behavior during this period will cause chain split to chain that signal BIP 110 and chain that doesn't.

Fallacy. Current number of block with a bit flipped is irrelevant for the BIP-110 activation. It only means that the moment of activation is the hardcoded one. BIP-110 is not a chain-split.

Author of BIP 110 isn't that dumb. With combination of behavior i mentioned above and 55% threshold, the author obviously aware possibility of chain split.

Reduced threshold (55% instead of 95%): The standard BIP9 threshold of 95% is designed for permanent consensus changes where near-universal miner readiness is desirable. Since rejecting data storage is a matter of urgency, and since this softfork is temporary and expires after one year, a lower threshold is ideal.

There isn't any announcement of rejection of the BIP-110 by any miner.

And i don't see any announcement they will signal BIP 110 on their mined block either.

False. There are announcements from miners who announced adopting the BIP-110.

False? i said "i don't see any announcement", not "there's no announcement". But when i write this, https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ say only 51 blocks that signal BIP 110. so it's not surprising so far i don't see such announcement from people who actually mine any of those 51 blocks.

[Greg Tonoski]

--snip--

The BIP-110 soft-fork doesn't create a separate chain.

If you care about small detail, the behavior of "Mandatory signaling period" is what causing split chain. I refer to behavior that reject block that doesn't signal bit 4.

Incorrect. The "mandatory signaling period" doesn't cause a chain to split. Similarly, behaviour that rejects a block that doesn't have a bit of a target flipped (difficulty adjustment) doesn't cause a chain to split.

https://mainnet.observer/charts/mining-pools-mining-bip110/ shows so far there are only total 49 blocks signal BIP 110.
Based on current block data, BIP 110 behavior during this period will cause chain split to chain that signal BIP 110 and chain that doesn't.

Fallacy. Current number of block with a bit flipped is irrelevant for the BIP-110 activation. It only means that the moment of activation is the hardcoded one. BIP-110 is not a chain-split.

Author of BIP 110 isn't that dumb.

Agree. The author (Dathon Ohm) is a smart man.

With combination of behavior i mentioned above and 55% threshold, the author obviously aware possibility of chain split.

Disagree. The optional 55% threshold is not a measure to prevent a chain split. The activation of the BIP-110 is not dependent on any threshold.

[athanred]

The "mandatory signaling period" doesn't cause a chain to split.

If it doesn't, then why it is called "mandatory"? Based on BIP-110 text, and the Knots implementation, many people think, that the chain will split there. Just because the first non-signalling block will be treated by all BIP-110 clients as invalid.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

So, do you disagree with BIP-110 text, which explicitly tells, that "non-signalling blocks are invalid"? And by checking, how many miners are supporting BIP-110, you can see, how fast BIP-110 chain would be.

The activation of the BIP-110 is not dependent on any threshold.

Which is exactly why it will cause the chain split: it will activate, even if 1% of miners will support it. And then, the speed of the BIP-110 chain will be proportional to the hashrate supporting it. Which means, that if the currently signalling miners will keep enforcing new rules, then they will produce one or two blocks per day, unless Knots will decide to change the code.

The current BIP-110 implementation simply says: "if 99% miners are not following our rules, then we don't care, and we will switch to 100x slower chain".

[Greg Tonoski]

The "mandatory signaling period" doesn't cause a chain to split.

If it doesn't, then why it is called "mandatory"? Based on BIP-110 text, and the Knots implementation, many people think, that the chain will split there. Just because the first non-signalling block will be treated by all BIP-110 clients as invalid.

"Mandatory" doesn't mean a split of a chain. The term "mandatory signalling" is quite old and had already been used pre-Segwit. Neither the BIP-110 text nor Knots implementation prescribe any chain-split. "Just because the first non-signalling block will be treated by all BIP-110 clients as invalid" doesn't mean that a chain is going to be split.

So, do you disagree with BIP-110 text, which explicitly tells, that "non-signalling blocks are invalid"?

I disagree with your misconception about a hypothetical chain-split. There isn't any chain-split in scope of the BIP-110 soft-fork. The BIP-110 text is correct.

And by checking, how many miners are supporting BIP-110, you can see, how fast BIP-110 chain would be.

Many of the current miners haven't disclosed their plans about them adapting to the BIP-110 (or quitting the P2P network Bitcoin). As a result, it is not easy to estimate how many of them support BIP-110. It is a mistake to extrapolate from the scarce information. Lack of the disclosures and any opposition suggest that those miners want to choose both the only and the safest option, i.e. to comply with the BIP-110.

The activation of the BIP-110 is not dependent on any threshold.

Which is exactly why it will cause the chain split

Incorrect. There isn't any causation like that.

The current BIP-110 implementation simply says: "if 99% miners are not following our rules, then we don't care, and we will switch to 100x slower chain".

Not true. It's not a quote from the BIP-110 specification.