Safest client to run while this whole bip110 situation resolves?

[takuma sato]

I was wondering what would the best client to run until the bip110 resolves. I was originally more on the bip110 side as I think Ordinals are a problem that make running nodes a hard task on some of the most secure laptops (which happen to be older ones that can be run with an open source BIOS) but as it stands im no longer sure I support that side as I sure do not want another hard fork situation in which you are unsure which side will end up becoming the main chain.

So while this resolves, what client is best if you need to send some coins to an exchange? I know it also depends on what the exchange is running. What I want is that if there is a hardfork, I get the coins on both ends of the fork so I can decide what to do (typically I have just held both sides and then dumped when the outcome was clearer)

As of right now I have installed bitcoin-29.3.knots20260210. I assume whether this one of the latest pre-30 Core version would be good reasonable candidates to wait for some months until we see a resolution.

[Satofan44]

I was wondering what would the best client to run until the bip110 resolves. I was originally more on the bip110 side as I think Ordinals are a problem that make running nodes a hard task on some of the most secure laptops (which happen to be older ones that can be run with an open source BIOS) but as it stands im no longer sure I support that side as I sure do not want another hard fork situation in which you are unsure which side will end up becoming the main chain.

So while this resolves, what client is best if you need to send some coins to an exchange? I know it also depends on what the exchange is running. What I want is that if there is a hardfork, I get the coins on both ends of the fork so I can decide what to do (typically I have just held both sides and then dumped when the outcome was clearer)

As of right now I have installed bitcoin-29.3.knots20260210. I assume whether this one of the latest pre-30 Core version would be good reasonable candidates to wait for some months until we see a resolution.

There is no replay protection that is created by the Bitcoin Knots side, therefore there is no client that can be used in order to provide you with any kind of protocol protection. Therefore, if you have 1 BTC before the split and you make a valid transaction which sends that 1 BTC to the exchange and it is a valid transaction under Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots, then this same transaction can be included on both chains (replayed). If you think about these kinds of forks without replay protection, you don't really suddenly have 2 BTC (1 on each chain) but you have a transaction which has consumed some UTXO (and which can be broadcast across all forks without replay protection).

Only a split that includes replay protection or differences in the transaction-format allows a separation of coins. If you want to retain coins on both chains, then you should not send send any BTC to an exchange during this time. You need to wait out a resolution of the situation. It is possible that the Knots fork never happens or really materializes or that there is no easy mechanism for a safe UTXO split at all. For this particular purpose, whether you are running Bitcoin Knots, an old Bitcoin Core or a new Bitcoin Core version makes no difference at all.

[nc50lc]

So while this resolves, what client is best if you need to send some coins to an exchange?

Do you mean before the split?
Because every transaction that you make before the chain split will be mirrored to the other blockchain, so there's nothing to replay in that case.
In other words: You already spent your coins so you don't get forked coins.

Or

You mean a precaution against replay protection after the split?
If so, you'll need to have both clients and enable "coin-control" to be able to create a transaction in the "Altcoin blockchain" that spends the forked UTXO back to your own wallet's address.
That way, even if someone replayed it in the Bitcoin blockchain, you're still the receiver.
(if it's replayed, don't proceed to the next step)

Then after it's confirmed, proceed to spend the Bitcoin UTXO to your intended exchange.
Its forked UTXO in the Altcoin chain is already spent so the transaction can't be replayed there.

Coin-control is a hard requirement for this to spend the correct UTXO, unless you have a single UTXO in your wallet.

[ABCbits]

You mean a precaution against replay protection after the split?
If so, you'll need to have both clients and enable "coin-control" to be able to create a transaction in the "Altcoin blockchain" that spends the forked UTXO back to your own wallet's address.
That way, even if someone replayed it in the Bitcoin blockchain, you're still the receiver.
(if it's replayed, don't proceed to the next step)

Until now, there's no mention of word "replay" on Bitcoin knots on GitHub[1-2]. So IMO just assume replay attack would happen and start by creating such TX that also violate BIP 110 (just send dust to uncompressed P2PK or create OP_RETURN with size more than 83 bytes). But it's not straightforward either, since BIP 110 only enforced after block height 963648 + 1 on BIP 110 chain[3] and i could miss small detail that make such process more risky than expected.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues?q=replay
[2] https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pulls?q=replay
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Deployment

[nc50lc]

-snip- and start by creating such TX that also violate BIP 110

That's actually a good prevention specific to Knots' case since it couldn't be broadcasted in their chain.

My example above is more of a precaution and universal to forked chains without replay protection.

[DaveF]

....
As of right now I have installed bitcoin-29.3.knots20260210. I assume whether this one of the latest pre-30 Core version would be good reasonable candidates to wait for some months until we see a resolution.

It's resolved. knots is dead, knots is 75+ blocks behind.
Also seems to be worthless since no exchange or other service has even mentioned it's existence. So you can worry about the lack of replay protection but even if you loose those coins it's not like they were worth anything.

Keep in mind, knots is just a fork of core & core only supports the current version and 2 previous versions. So with 32.x being released in a couple of months that means that 29.x will no longer have any support / fixes / updates except what luke puts in. Now, people have been running unsupported versions of bitcoin for years and years with no issue, but it's something to consider.

-Dave

[athanred]

there is no client that can be used in order to provide you with any kind of protocol protection

I successfully splitted my coins through P2PK, if you use any of my splitted coin in your transaction, then your coins will also split correctly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5590674.msg67025339#msg67025339

non-BIP-110: https://mempool.space/tx/4b9b6cdfbd9dd6e14f593f014b6bfe4a823089d90a01ed212b82999c65e63919
BIP-110: https://mempool.guide/tx/f0693758e229ba82d3ece2e419714f60617b77c5148c8fda7c382cbf8931cf48

[nc50lc]

It's resolved. knots is dead, knots is 75+ blocks behind.
Also seems to be worthless since no exchange or other service has even mentioned it's existence. So you can worry about the lack of replay protection but even if you loose those coins it's not like they were worth anything.

Additionally, it looks like removing BIP-110 to rejoin the Bitcoin blockchain is on the table now with this newly posted issue:
github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/355

It's either they'll rejoin the Bitcoin Network, be an altcoin with different PoW or rebrand to do the former.

[takuma sato]

Hasn't the fork happened already?

According to this site, bip110 is already 2 blocks into a separate chain:

https://fork.observer/?network=mainnet

So basically this just means that if you were holding your coins in self custody in a full node, your coins are already showing on both chains.

Of course I agree that "bip110 coins" are basically worth zero, but you always want to have access to these coins just in case it picks up some traction in some exchange. You could just dump them or keep them both. I never bothered dumping BSV or BCH so I guess they are still there with some value.

It would be good if Bitcoin Knots kept a node client in the longest chain for those that think Ordinals are dump and want to avoid spam and non-monetary stuff to the best of capacities, but without resulting in a chain split, as discussed here:

https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/355

If not, then I guess we are stuck with Bitcoin Core as the best option even tho it's clear some questionable stuff has happened there but it is what it is. bip110 has no support other than some nodes. Hopefully Bitcoin Core focuses on monetary solutions and fixing bugs without flashy stuff in the future because I never trusted hardware wallets as well as any other software.

[philipma1957]

so my core 29 has some of Lukes coin?

[nc50lc]

so my core 29 has some of Lukes coin?

No, Bitcoin clients like Core should follow the Bitcoin blockchain even if it isn't the latest version.

But if you were to install and sync Knots and import your wallet or private keys (don't do it),
It should have forked coins of the bitcoins that you haven't spent before the split, but I don't know if it'll have any value once they listed it as an Altcoin.

[DaveF]

so my core 29 has some of Lukes coin?

Your private keys that point to certain BTC addresses will also point to the same addresses on the lukecoin chain that have the same amount of coins.
But,
1) As of now that chain is stalled.
2) They are planning to change the mining algo and do a hard fork on Sept 1 or earlier.
3) Luke and most of the 110 supporters have gone down a very deep hole into who knows what so I would not trust anything they do at this point.

I would just leave everything as is and see what happens. If lukecoins are worth something and tradable on an exchange and you have enough to matter at that point I would think about moving your BTC to a new address and then sending the lukecoins there to sell. But odds are it's not going to be worth doing.

-Dave

[Satofan44]

Your private keys that point to certain BTC addresses will also point to the same addresses on the lukecoin chain that have the same amount of coins.
But,
1) As of now that chain is stalled.
2) They are planning to change the mining algo and do a hard fork on Sept 1 or earlier.
3) Luke and most of the 110 supporters have gone down a very deep hole into who knows what so I would not trust anything they do at this point.

Where was our dear friend that was "absolutely convinced" that Knots had the majority support and that this was definitely going to be a thing? 

I would just leave everything as is and see what happens. If lukecoins are worth something and tradable on an exchange and you have enough to matter at that point I would think about moving your BTC to a new address and then sending the lukecoins there to sell. But odds are it's not going to be worth doing.

-Dave

I suggest that people stop obssesing over dust value and learn proper risk management. The risk reward ratio in relation to the situation with LukeChain is horrible. The value that maybe could be gained from claiming the coins is very low, and when you factor in the risk of error when redeeming anything at all this way the correct approach is: DO NOT IT. Users should leave it alone and let it die. You should only risk your private keys and balances if it makes financial sense from a risk-reward perspective. It would be insane to try to redeem 1 lukecoin for a value of $5 and simultaneously risk a BTC worth more than $60k to do so.

[DaveF]

I suggest that people stop obssesing over dust value and learn proper risk management. The risk reward ratio in relation to the situation with LukeChain is horrible. The value that maybe could be gained from claiming the coins is very low, and when you factor in the risk of error when redeeming anything at all this way the correct approach is: DO NOT IT. Users should leave it alone and let it die. You should only risk your private keys and balances if it makes financial sense from a risk-reward perspective. It would be insane to try to redeem 1 lukecoin for a value of $5 and simultaneously risk a BTC worth more than $60k to do so.

Back in the 2017 forks people moved millions of BTC from one address to another just to claim forks. Most of them were fairly worthless. If you paid attention, did not install any software on a fresh clean machine except for the forkcoin wallet and wiped it afterwards there was no real risk except for the fact that someone may have been able to kind of trace where your coins came from.

If you did not pay attention, or installed all the software on your main machine, or did not move your BTC 1st then you did run a risk of loss.

But, the more lukecoin that people try to sell, the more downward pressure there will be on the price so the worse it's going to be for them so to me it's worth it.
However, as I said before there has to be an exchange that actually supports the coin.

Everyone has to has to use their own risk - reward level and how much their time is worth to figure it out once a price is found for the coins.

I'm a tech nerd, have dozens of machines lying around, so to spin one up to fork some coins is a low risk. But, I do value my time. If they are worth less then $50 a coin it's not going to be worth spending the couple of hours it's gong to take.

-Dave