BIP-110 Split

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I like how they blame Bitcoin for the replay issues and not accept that responsibility.

it's of course because that despite changing to a different algorithm requiring different hardware they insist on saying that they are the 'true' Bitcoin and it is Core that has forked ergo making it Cores' problem.

In their minds it must be a beautiful sky where they live....

[MoparMiningLLC]

I like how they blame Bitcoin for the replay issues and not accept that responsibility.

it's of course because that despite changing to a different algorithm requiring different hardware they insist on saying that they are the 'true' Bitcoin and it is Core that has forked ergo making it Cores' problem.

In their minds it must be a beautiful sky where they live....

good to see ya fuzzy! yea they are all kinds of fucked in the head. Either totally ignorant and following Luke blindly believing everything he says or they are complicit in the fraud.

[Wind_FURY]

I like how they blame Bitcoin for the replay issues and not accept that responsibility.

The Bitcoin Forks "mania" has already happened during 2017 and 2018 with Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Cash SV, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Clashic, and those other shitcoin forks. It's OVER for that. The best advice for FilterBoiCoin is to IGNORE it, although it was entertaining to follow before the actual fork happened. The stupidity of that community was unbelievable.

[satscraper]

~

Well, some BTC transactions are already replay protected.

See e0cb38719f07cbb7cda8d2547e63178a9313df87857d852dc6e24f478d7e4068, it is mined on SHA256d chain but was not replayed on Black2b chain.

In my view, this trend toward transaction separation will be enhanced among users over time.

[athanred]

Well, some BTC transactions are already replay protected.

Of course they are. If you have one splitted coin, then everything it touches, is also splitted correctly. It is enough if a miner uses a coin from any newly minted block. Then, everything touched by such coin is always splitted, even if there is no replay protection.

this trend toward transaction separation will be enhanced among users over time

Of course. However, if some coins will remain unsplitted, then they could be replayed at any time later in the future, unless some chain will introduce new consensus rules, to block it. All altcoiners have an incentive to keep things replayable for as long as possible. Because of newly minted coins, they cannot keep coins from splitting forever, but well: they have no reason to make coins harder to replay, because they can get more coins, by depositing splitted coins to exchanges, and withdrawing unsplitted ones, and replaying it on their side, as long as there are enough supply of yet unsplitted coins.

[gmaxwell]

News flash: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/396

Censorship addicts see censorship as the solution to every concern or irritation they have.  Now they're mad because some miner has more hashrate than they'd like, so they are debating changing POW again or blacklisting the address the miner has been using.

[chriscooked]

News flash: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/396

Censorship addicts see censorship as the solution to every concern or irritation they have.  Now they're mad because some miner has more hashrate than they'd like, so they are debating changing POW again or blacklisting the address the miner has been using.

[pooya87]

News flash: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/396

Code:

// Consensus rule: outputs paid to the blacklisted address are
// permanently unspendable. Reject the entire transaction if any input
// attempts to spend one of them.
if (coin.out.scriptPubKey == BlacklistedScriptPubKey()) {
    return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_CONSENSUS, "bad-txns-blacklisted-input");
}

LOL I don't think they know how Bitcoin works!
This is the most moronic thing I've ever seen and it says it is part of the consensus rules. Do they really not realize that creating a new address requires no effort?

The nature of the proposal is not surprising though. BIP-110 itself was a malicious attack on one of the most important principles of Bitcoin when it pushed a change without consensus, so this is just the continuation of that malicious attack on Bitcoin principles, this time on another principle called cencorship resistance.

[gmaxwell]

LOL I don't think they know how Bitcoin works!
This is the most moronic thing I've ever seen and it says it is part of the consensus rules. Do they really not realize that creating a new address requires no effort?

The nature of the proposal is not surprising though. BIP-110 itself was a malicious attack on one of the most important principles of Bitcoin when it pushed a change without consensus, so this is just the continuation of that malicious attack on Bitcoin principles, this time on another principle called cencorship resistance.

It's all a power larp to these tools---  proposing random spite consensus changes against someone for simply mining (not mining 'spam', not reorging the chain.. just mining) but they intentionally made Bitcoin transactions replay on their altcoin.  They're also now strongarming exchanges into calling their coin "XBT" in order to intentionally create confusion with Bitcoin.  It's the same kind of attitude they exhibited in Bitcoin, like that clip of mechanic fantasizing about suicide bombing a wedding for not paying attention to him.

Earlier today Cguida (dathon ohm) threatened someone with a ban for suggesting that blacklisting coins wasn't a good move for an open and decentralized blockchain-- and basically took the position that someone there can't oppose it without suggesting an alternative way to shut out this large miner.

Now it looks like they may be adopting my zero subsidy recommendation, figures that they'd do it after it would be too late to have prevented their massive inequitable instamine, only in time to lock out other miners from participating in it.  As if launching their chain days before the announced date wasn't unfair enough for them.



In any case, it does look like people are figuring out how to prevent replay ... and I haven't yet heard of any big replay loss disasters, but in the past the losses were a bit delayed when the second wave were a little less cautious.

[stompix]

No, no, no it shouldn't be that easy

- Step 1: they need to change the algo to X21S, like one of the proposals
- Find out if anyone can just rent GPU hash rate these days to do the same again
- Step 2: cut the reward
- Find out they have just less miners and the chain will be attacked with $1000 worth of gear
- Step 3: move to POS
- Realize Coinbase, MSTR and etc could also just reach 51%
- Step 4: invalidate all previous balances since the split
- Look in the room and see there are just the 3 or 4 of them left 

Earlier today Cguida (dathon ohm) threatened someone with a ban for suggesting that blacklisting coins wasn't a good move for an open and decentralized blockchain--

He should really change his name to Captagon!

In any case, it does look like people are figuring out how to prevent replay ... and I haven't yet heard of any big replay loss disasters, but in the past the losses were a bit delayed when the second wave were a little less cautious.

As time passes, there will be less and less of an incentive to sell those coins, with BCH the coin was going up far closer to BTC value..here..
I thought about selling when I saw 1200, I actually decided when it was $800, I sold only half a coin from one of my wallets at $620 and the spread and the fees eat up about $50 of those and now the price is $300 Not much in terms of $, but I still feel great knowing some blakie paid that much for their shitcoins.