110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea

[Karl_3000]

I saw this post of Michael Saylor on X about 110 reasons BIP110 is not good. If you have time, you can also read about it

https://x.com/saylor/status/2078530136815939847

Click on the image on X for you to read it.

Bitcoin Knot BIP110 users that are supporting what is not necessary will not like this at all.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why would Bitcoin Knots users care about Michael Saylor? When you don't hold any Bitcoin to actually worry about the network's stability, your priorities naturally shift.

It makes perfect sense to risk a trillion-dollar asset class if it means protecting the world from blockchain dick pics.

[Dogedegen]

I saw this post of Michael Saylor on X about 110 reasons BIP110 is not good. If you have time, you can also read about it

https://x.com/saylor/status/2078530136815939847

Click on the image on X for you to read it.

People who do not have an X account are not able to read this, can someone quote the whole content into a post please? If you have read it, you should do it.

Bitcoin Knot BIP110 users that are supporting what is not necessary will not like this at all.

When someone has some sort of cult like belief that is wrong like that the Earth is flat, they will come up with any kind of reasons to dismiss something. In this case they can just simply flip the switch and attack the person Saylor, and dismiss the arguments against it. I don't think that they will be deterred even if you had a million reasons written down, like I said this is the pattern we see with people who believe that the Earth is flat. BIP110 is an attack on Bitcoin, but it will not succeed with doing anything as it has less than 1% of support. Unfortunately if some normal users by now still have not seen the truth, I don't think that this post will convince them either.

[stompix]

People who do not have an X account are not able to read this, can someone quote the whole content into a post please? If you have read it, you should do it.

Don't bother, seems like it's written with ChatGPT, just like his financial advice and planning!

BIP 110 is pure garbage but some of the arguments Saylor has are not arguments at all:

-Known use cases are not the full design space. The proposal says it preserves all known monetary use cases. Innovation is defined by what is not yet known.
-Temporary consensus code is still consensus code. It must be specified, implemented, reviewed, tested, deployed, monitored, and later retired.
-Evasion may make transactions less efficient. Fragmented or obfuscated encodings can consume more structure and complicate analysis without eliminating the underlying demand.
- A contentious restriction should demand greater confidence, not less. Temporary duration does not make coordination failure harmless.

This is just another load of garbage AI slop!
Here is the text for it if you really want to waste your time on a rainy day> https://pastebin.com/zSm8R6Js

[treesintheforestooh]

This is just another load of garbage AI slop!
Here is the text for it if you really want to waste your time on a rainy day> https://pastebin.com/zSm8R6Js

Sheesh. <smh>

Yeah, I was thinking 110 reasons seems a bit extreme. Wouldn't be surprising if this is slop - good chance, definitely.

Fwiw, this is a good read on the subject, too:

https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

Very easy to understand. In particular, I think #8 is the most prominent for me, though they are all solid reasons.

8. It actually increases rather than reduces legal and regulatory risks.

By attempting to filter "bad" data it actually invites more regulatory pressure - if government authorities believe that Bitcoin can be changed by pressuring a few entities, they will almost certainly try to do so. Neutrality protects the network - selective censorship doesn't.

[pooya87]

I saw this post of Michael Saylor on X about 110 reasons BIP110 is not good. If you have time, you can also read about it

I don't care what a rich oligarch thinks is good or bad and it should not be important for anybody else either. It doesn't matter if what they say is correct or not, they are just celebrities seeking attention to fill their own pockets with fiat.

I also don't need 110 reasons, I only need one. BIP-110 is bad because it does not seek majority support to activate a major change in the protocol and that is against Bitcoin principles. We need to get past that major flaw before we can even begin discussing the rest.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

We should not always follow Michael Saylor by his words; sometimes they are only meant to attract public attention and nothing more. When you are choosing whom to follow, don't adopt every one of their idea as part of your mentality to operate with; take the good ones and leave the rest. This is not the first time of saying something that is off the radar.

[Dogedegen]

Don't bother, seems like it's written with ChatGPT, just like his financial advice and planning!

BIP 110 is pure garbage but some of the arguments Saylor has are not arguments at all:

-Known use cases are not the full design space. The proposal says it preserves all known monetary use cases. Innovation is defined by what is not yet known.
-Temporary consensus code is still consensus code. It must be specified, implemented, reviewed, tested, deployed, monitored, and later retired.
-Evasion may make transactions less efficient. Fragmented or obfuscated encodings can consume more structure and complicate analysis without eliminating the underlying demand.
- A contentious restriction should demand greater confidence, not less. Temporary duration does not make coordination failure harmless.

This is just another load of garbage AI slop!
Here is the text for it if you really want to waste your time on a rainy day> https://pastebin.com/zSm8R6Js

Thank you for that, often users forget to include the contents of the post that they are linking to directly here. It seems rather quite unconvincing and useless to include so many AI slop reasons. It would have been better if he came up with 5 or 10 real reasons than for him to make this very long list of AI slop reasons.

8. It actually increases rather than reduces legal and regulatory risks.

By attempting to filter "bad" data it actually invites more regulatory pressure - if government authorities believe that Bitcoin can be changed by pressuring a few entities, they will almost certainly try to do so. Neutrality protects the network - selective censorship doesn't.

That is a really good point, and that is definitely what would happen! Some people that react fearful and focus on the short term forget that many times what might seem good in the short term is very bad in the long term. If something like this is successful one day, then Bitcoin will become a shitcoin and will be controlled by many entities. If you can regulate and filter some types of transactions, then that invites the regulation of every kind of transaction. As long as the network is netural, there will be no kind of filtering. They can only do that on centralized platforms and that is fine in the current system because we don't have to use them.

I don't care what a rich oligarch thinks is good or bad and it should not be important for anybody else either. It doesn't matter if what they say is correct or not, they are just celebrities seeking attention to fill their own pockets with fiat.

I also don't need 110 reasons, I only need one. BIP-110 is bad because it does not seek majority support to activate a major change in the protocol and that is against Bitcoin principles. We need to get past that major flaw before we can even begin discussing the rest.

Saylor is not an oligarch, and this is a very irrational perspective to be had which should not be agreed with. In most cases we should only listen to what people are saying and judge the words that are being said, regardless of who says them. It would be very irrational to dismiss the words of someone just because they are rich and you can't accept that you are not rich as they are. They may be speaking the complete truth, but you would choose to not listen due to your emotions. That is a very bad stance to have.

[joniboini]

Reading several articles shows that the miner support is very low, not even 5%. Is there still a chance this fork will be activated, even though it has a significantly lower requirement compared to other forks before it?

I guess we can only see what happens 3 weeks later. Judging from many articles about it, it seems like a lot of people are against it anyway.

[Artemis3]

BIP-110 will have no effect due to lack of support. Doesn't matter if it activates, because the overwhelming majority of nodes will disobey the order to discard traffic from nodes that don't follow it. The end result is a small group of nodes orphaning themselves out and Bitcoin remains the same.

Considering someone took the time to write 110 reasons... i won't bother repeating, but in short it doesn't stop the spam even if people supported it, while it gives bad ideas to certain entities.

I personally don't have a position. The moment i learned it would achieve nothing, lost my interest. We should be more focused in getting more quantum computing resistant etc.

[pooya87]

Saylor is not an oligarch, and this is a very irrational perspective to be had which should not be agreed with. In most cases we should only listen to what people are saying and judge the words that are being said, regardless of who says them. It would be very irrational to dismiss the words of someone just because they are rich and you can't accept that you are not rich as they are. They may be speaking the complete truth, but you would choose to not listen due to your emotions. That is a very bad stance to have.

People can do whatever they want but I'd rather listen to experts not "anyone" who speaks. Just like if get sick, I don't ask the first guy I see driving a Lambo to tell me what to do just because he is rich. I go to a medical expert instead

As far as I know Saylor's only qualification here is that he is a Bitcoin fan and runs an investment company that owns a lot of BTC. That doesn't give someone the technical qualification to give an opinion on such a technical matter as the Bitcoin Protocol change.

P.S. People were once saying similar things about Elon Musk too during the time he was praising Bitcoin to fill his own pockets with fiat. We know how that ended...

[Cookdata]

BIP-110 will have no effect due to lack of support. Doesn't matter if it activates, because the overwhelming majority of nodes will disobey the order to discard traffic from nodes that don't follow it.

There will be no activation, at least based on how the progress has been since they started barking like dogs. You can't activate what is not signal and by that it means miners are not interested in their madness. Assuming there is signals, then there is high chance of activation at some point later in the future but this their development is a dead end.

The end result is a small group of nodes orphaning themselves out and Bitcoin remains the same.

This is what I think, I don't think there is going to be an orphanage but likely a chain split for minority. If there is activation, that means many miners and nodes agree to the activation and will continue to mine under that consensus rules, may be some minority that does not agreed before then will likely want to join later and then the rest of minority that doesn't want might form a chain split. This is under the assumption if bip110 becomes successful, all this looks fictional to be honest because it's not going to happen.

Considering someone took the time to write 110 reasons... i won't bother repeating, but in short it doesn't stop the spam even if people supported it, while it gives bad ideas to certain entities.

I don't know what they call spam right now, the Mempool should be crying with fee competition but since last year, the fee rate has dropped below sub 1 sats. This is unlike that period we were having 200 sats/vbyte. Those crazy days of ordinals and nfts on Bitcoin, it's now that we want to draw the line. I don't think this is about spam anymore, perhaps about ego and pride, power and, hate towards each other.

[gmaxwell]

Luke-jr delusionally blames Bitcoin core contributors for his loss of 204 bitcoins after he placed remote access credentials on an unsecured and unpatched windows laptop which allowed hackers into a machine that unintentionally had an online copy of his wallet it.  The wallet was encrypted but the passphrase was in a file sitting along with it.

Because he's unable to accept that his poor choices contributed in any way to the compromise he's convinced himself that some bitcoin developer must have snuck into his room at a conference while he slept with the laptop next to him, in spite of every indication being that the compromise was electronic and remote.

And since he's a no-coiner now he apparently doesn't care if he torches bitcoin to get to them.

All this would be pretty irrelevant: Luke has had wild flights of fancy many times through Bitcoin's history--  but unfortunately he was recently given millions in funding and permitted to hire a marketing staff for his mining pool-- a staff that seems to do nothing but promote 110 these days.  ... and his forking plans just happen to coincide with the business interests of pool: after all, whats the urgency in making your own templates if the pool you're using is already doing what you'd do yourself?   To promote Ocean it's not sufficient that there be a consensus change, it has to be a bad or controversial one or otherwise everyone would be running it.

I doubt they planned it out this way, but conflicts of interests often take the form of failing to intervene in bad situations when they happen to work out for you.  In an alternative history where luke-jr's fork wasn't a way to promote ocean the people in his company would probably have tackled him to get him to cut it out, rather than enabling him (in most cases, or staying conspicuously silent for a few).

Though they did actively and dishonestly conceal the company's involvement by laundering the change through a third party, only to later get caught by someone noticing the development in luke-jr's git history prior to the sockpuppet account existing.  Luke-jr also directly lied to me when I confronted him about his marketing staff astroturfing for 110 on bitcointalk, only to later get caught through careless screenshot use... so my above characterization of a passive conflict of interest is perhaps a bit too charitable.