BIP-110 Split

[stompix]

What do you know, they are actually going through with the 45 day maturity.
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/419

I'm truly disappointed they should have really gone with a 100-year maturity period, confiscation of all coins, confiscation of all mining gear from unfriendly pools, confiscation of all bitcoins and other altcoins from unfriendly exchanges that are not accepting the "true" bitcoin, takeover of all social media that is hostile against their "bitcoin", force the congress to recognize blake as true bitcoin and Luke as the emperor of mankind, the true one, not the fake from warhammer 40k.

Wonder how many people who are just renting hash are going to be forced to drop off.

The plebs? Like flies!
The evil Chinese miners that luke hates because it made Convoy irrelevant? They can easily cushion that with the 18000 coins they've mined in 20 days, get ready to see alphapool at 75%.

Btw found a website that tracks the so-called monetary value in the chains, don't know how they track this since I won't bother reading all their mumbo jumbo so Bitcoin moved 550k coins yesterday, Blake only 68k, seems like more and more inputs become invalid each day on the blake chain.

[ABCbits]

What do you know, they are actually going through with the 45 day maturity.
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/419

I'm truly disappointed they should have really gone with a 100-year maturity period, confiscation of all coins, confiscation of all mining gear from unfriendly pools, confiscation of all bitcoins and other altcoins from unfriendly exchanges that are not accepting the "true" bitcoin, takeover of all social media that is hostile against their "bitcoin", force the congress to recognize blake as true bitcoin and Luke as the emperor of mankind, the true one, not the fake from warhammer 40k.

I think you missed this part of the PR.

This is intended to satisfy the current consensus, as the first of three steps:

[V] 45 day maturity period (this PR) to make sure side effects (expected or not) are tolerable.
[ ] Extend maturity period to a full year (expiration of RDTS)
[ ] Near the end of the year, withhold rewards for any blocks produced by non-miners (ie, Stratum-to-pool)

Third step is close enough to "confiscation of all coins". Every sane BTCB2 miner who read this part should immediately stop mining and sold any remaining coin they have. But don't worry, i bet we'll see PR to remove all UTXO that is considered as part of arbitrary data/spam TX from UTXO set forever.

[stompix]

I think you missed this part of the PR.
~
Third step is close enough to "confiscation of all coins".

Yeah, I know, that is their 3423th backup plan,  but they didn't implement it. This is why I'm disappointed.
Captagon (guida)  mentioned this numerous times in their Discord, as well as burning retroactively coinbase rewards,  and Luke and the other reatreded in charge did too, I am sure they would want that but they are afraid of doing it.

Also, since I was clearly wrong on the motifs of some of the decisions, this is probably also more aimed at keeping Convoy afloat and grabbing more coins while gatekeeping minor farms without liquidity...

Every sane BTCB2 miner who read this part should immediately stop mining and sold any remaining coin they have.

Their "plebs" are insane!
The migrated sia miners will probably take the gamble!

[athanred]

I am sure they would want that but they are afraid of doing it.

Afraid of what? Who will come to them, and say, that they shouldn't? They now have their own chain, and they can do everything they want. They already ignored a lot of feedback, so it is difficult to break even more things at this point. And if they accept hard-forks as a good way of dealing with the problems, where no forks are needed, then they can do absolutely everything.

Meanwhile:

https://bitfiles.io/btcb2/a1f76295b7c14804cf165813e81b76e25168136ca532169acffc354051f55b71
https://mempool.guide/tx/a1f76295b7c14804cf165813e81b76e25168136ca532169acffc354051f55b71

There is no spam on their chain, right? Right? It is also funny, that as the price per coin is cheaper, than on non-BIP-110 chain, it will be cheaper to push data into their network.

And because everyone, who wanted to sell coins, probably already did it, then there will be only people with some dust, and nothing to do with it, so the only use case would be to burn that into fees. Because for example if exchanges require at least 0.01 BIP-110 coins for withdrawals, then smaller amounts have no use.

[DaveF]

I am sure they would want that but they are afraid of doing it.

Afraid of what? Who will come to them, and say, that they shouldn't? They now have their own chain, and they can do everything they want. They already ignored a lot of feedback, so it is difficult to break even more things at this point. And if they accept hard-forks as a good way of dealing with the problems, where no forks are needed, then they can do absolutely everything.

Meanwhile:

https://bitfiles.io/btcb2/a1f76295b7c14804cf165813e81b76e25168136ca532169acffc354051f55b71
https://mempool.guide/tx/a1f76295b7c14804cf165813e81b76e25168136ca532169acffc354051f55b71

There is no spam on their chain, right? Right? It is also funny, that as the price per coin is cheaper, than on non-BIP-110 chain, it will be cheaper to push data into their network.

And because everyone, who wanted to sell coins, probably already did it, then there will be only people with some dust, and nothing to do with it, so the only use case would be to burn that into fees. Because for example if exchanges require at least 0.01 BIP-110 coins for withdrawals, then smaller amounts have no use.

Afraid of loosing control. Already there is at least 1 pool that is not following the fork.
https://x.com/CTRLpool

I am sure there will be others.

As for the no spam in the chain, we all knew it was going to happen. Waiting for some automated tool to do it with so I can dump a bunch of dust coins and jpgs into their chain.



I do disagree with the everyone who wanted to sell coins has statement. I think for some whales sitting on 100s of BTC it's on the to do list.
But, if you are sitting on 100s you can sell one with just about no effort and get $83k +/- at the moment. To sell lukecoin you have to split it, and then sell in batches (or dump the price to sub $200) and if you have 300 BTC you still don't get the $83k you could have gotten for selling 1 coin.

I think you missed this part of the PR.
~
Third step is close enough to "confiscation of all coins".

Yeah, I know, that is their 3423th backup plan,  but they didn't implement it. This is why I'm disappointed.
Captagon (guida)  mentioned this numerous times in their Discord, as well as burning retroactively coinbase rewards,  and Luke and the other reatreded in charge did too, I am sure they would want that but they are afraid of doing it.

Also, since I was clearly wrong on the motifs of some of the decisions, this is probably also more aimed at keeping Convoy afloat and grabbing more coins while gatekeeping minor farms without liquidity...

Every sane BTCB2 miner who read this part should immediately stop mining and sold any remaining coin they have.

Their "plebs" are insane!
The migrated sia miners will probably take the gamble!

The entire game really seems to be "make luke money" and "give luke control"

-Dave

[stompix]

Afraid of what? Who will come to them, and say, that they shouldn't? They now have their own chain, and they can do everything they want.

I also thought that all this was about ideology and a group of rebels, but day by day it seems they were also about the money, the algo, the difficulty set, the cap on how much the difficulty could rise, it was all about a premine, and, well, money!  So the thing they could be afraid of is people rally dumping it, again, freezing the coins hurts Alphapool and other mines, it doesn't hurt Luke and Convoy as they own that, all they have to do is entertain plebs for 45 days and keep the price above profitability rates on the exchanges.

If Luke/Convoy mine with his own gear, he can leverage with the coins mined as long as the price is over $50, any miner quiting is one less competitor, evey frozen coin is one coin less dumped to keep the price up.

Also, seems like somebody is spamming JPGs on the blaketard chain, grabbing popcorn! 

The entire game really seems to be "make luke money" and "give luke control"
-Dave

Yup, and it pains me to admit but I was wrong all the way thinging it was something else, maybe some of their hardcore fans truly believe it's about the monetary system and the plebs but nope, this is a fools milking money scheme!

[athanred]

Waiting for some automated tool to do it with so I can dump a bunch of dust coins and jpgs into their chain.

I already linked you one of the tools, this page has an "upload" button. If you don't trust this website with dust coins, then you can build it from source code, and run it locally: https://github.com/bitfiles-io/bpub

Also, they support even testnets. Another thing is you can download JSON file with all details, before actually sending the coins, and verify everything manually, if you want to, or replace their autogenerated private key with your own.

Of course, if Knots developers will decide to block 1-of-15 multisig, or other things like that, then people will switch to other methods. Because you never know, if something will be blocked in the future or not. They blocked harmless P2PKs, even though they are always smaller than 80 bytes, but they allow OP_RETURNs of that size. I don't fully follow their logic, if there is any.

Some example: https://bitfiles.io/btcb2/898c9c3e8bad6604e7be8b9d8c0dabbf4a6e7e3853b0354484d8ce19176b199d

For some reason, this transaction seems to be perceived as less spammy than P2PK, even though using P2PK would actually make it smaller, when it comes to the total number of bytes pushed on-chain. Which was also funny, when I used P2PK to split coins: transactions on non-BIP-110 chain actually took less bytes, than on BIP-110 side.

[DaveF]

Waiting for some automated tool to do it with so I can dump a bunch of dust coins and jpgs into their chain.

I already linked you one of the tools, this page has an "upload" button. If you don't trust this website with dust coins, then you can build it from source code, and run it locally: https://github.com/bitfiles-io/bpub
...

My bad did not see that.
Guess I know what I am going to be doing later this week.

-Dave

[stompix]

Guess I know what I am going to be doing later this week.

So.....
Anyone taking credit for this?
https://mempool.guide/tx/453d77ba2803878cd14def995f9ae55c73d42fb8886a810e1748cddae0b08da5

I was curious how long it will take till we see porn on blake...blakeporn... sounds already like a porn category
Now, if someone is willing to risk a Discord ban and tell the blaketards about them and record the meltdown, I would be immensely grateful.

[DaveF]

Guess I know what I am going to be doing later this week.

So.....
Anyone taking credit for this?
https://mempool.guide/tx/453d77ba2803878cd14def995f9ae55c73d42fb8886a810e1748cddae0b08da5

I was curious how long it will take till we see porn on blake...blakeporn... sounds already like a porn category
Now, if someone is willing to risk a Discord ban and tell the blaketards about them and record the meltdown, I would be immensely grateful.

Normally I would love to take credit but:

Mine came in the other day. The internet at the office has been wonky and we are waiting for a new fiber pull (yeah nobody here cares) so I have not been able to fully set them up.
Was going to bring them home but actually was working on my home network this weekend. Doing a new Ubiquiti home lab (yeah nobody here cares about that either).

-Dave

So I'm 5g at the moment and trying not to move that much data. Still setting up all the Ubiquiti / Unifi stuff.

How did you find it? Just scanning all the blocks looking for TXs like that?

Edit: Nevermind, the link @athanred posted shows them.

-Dave

[Danish Ali]

I don't fully follow their logic, if there is any.

For some reason, this transaction seems to be perceived as less spammy than P2PK, even though using P2PK would actually make it smaller, when it comes to the total number of bytes pushed on-chain.

It seems inconsistent to me to keep multisig-based tricks open. The reasoning behind the P2PK ban makes sense (IMHO) once you realise that it's about "permanent UTXO set bloat" rather than "total bytes pushed on-chain."

Whereas with an OP_RETURN output the data is known to be unspendable so it can be discarded from the UTXO set as soon as the transaction is confirmed and doesn't need to be kept in memory/on disk (unless a block containing the tx is requested, since it's part of that block's data), a P2PK output could conceivably be spent, so its data must be kept in the UTXO set permanently, meaning that all nodes have to keep it in memory/on disk permanently. So, even though it's a smaller size it has a worse effect under this criterion (permanent UTXO set bloat) than OP_RETURN does.

Under this criterion I think banning P2PK but allowing the equivalent multisig trick makes no sense though...

[DaveF]

I don't fully follow their logic, if there is any.

For some reason, this transaction seems to be perceived as less spammy than P2PK, even though using P2PK would actually make it smaller, when it comes to the total number of bytes pushed on-chain.

It seems inconsistent to me to keep multisig-based tricks open. The reasoning behind the P2PK ban makes sense (IMHO) once you realise that it's about "permanent UTXO set bloat" rather than "total bytes pushed on-chain."

Whereas with an OP_RETURN output the data is known to be unspendable so it can be discarded from the UTXO set as soon as the transaction is confirmed and doesn't need to be kept in memory/on disk (unless a block containing the tx is requested, since it's part of that block's data), a P2PK output could conceivably be spent, so its data must be kept in the UTXO set permanently, meaning that all nodes have to keep it in memory/on disk permanently. So, even though it's a smaller size it has a worse effect under this criterion (permanent UTXO set bloat) than OP_RETURN does.

Under this criterion I think banning P2PK but allowing the equivalent multisig trick makes no sense though...

Almost nothing about 110 makes sense.
But, at this point does it really matter. They are fully off in altcoin land. They can call themselves whatever they want but in the end nobody outside the 110 community it's almost an unknown thing. And the 110 community is not that big.

But it's still out there, so we have to keep things like this alive so people do not get suckered into running 110 without knowing what it really is.

-Dave

[athanred]

The reasoning behind the P2PK ban makes sense (IMHO) once you realise that it's about "permanent UTXO set bloat" rather than "total bytes pushed on-chain."

Then, why P2TR or P2WSH is not banned as well? If you compare compressed P2PK, then it is one byte more, than in P2TR. And when it comes to P2PK, then it is always spent by a single DER signature, while P2TR can push a lot of data through TapScript.

So, if someone wants to use fake public keys in P2PK, then that person could simply use P2TR or P2WSH, and get it one byte cheaper. And, as you can see in practice, it doesn't really matter for spammers, if they consume one byte more, or one byte less, because existing spam usually allocates more coins than needed in advance, and there is some change, which is usually sufficient to post the same spam again. And because the price of BIP-110 coin is much lower than non-BIP-110 ones, then it is actually cheaper, to use even very inefficient methods.

Also, it is funny to see, that they consider Satoshi's early transactions to be incompatible with BIP-110. Was Satoshi a spammer? It only shows, that they cannot create a good rules, which would filter the actual spam, without affecting real payments in any way.

While this one is rejected by BIP-110: https://mempool.space/tx/909b486928dc415d9b6613fcc70ccdbfb4d2f88516a040522365b95794774608
Even though accepted BIP-110-equivalent pushed more data: https://mempool.guide/tx/61ff0a1070b084d2601245056946480917a5f3efcb30fde082e7dafbd2b17158

non-BIP-110: sending to P2PK + spending it: 204 bytes + 305 bytes = 509 bytes
BIP-110: sending to P2WPKH + spending it: 191 bytes + 339 bytes = 530 bytes

So, by blocking P2PK, they actually increased data consumption in historical blocks, for absolutely no reason. And OP_RETURNs up to 80 bytes are still allowed by BIP-110, even though all valid P2PKs are smaller than that, even for uncompressed keys.

I can see no reason to block P2PK, when it actually leads to less bytes pushed on-chain in some scenarios. And if blocking P2PK would really work, then spammers would simply switch to other address types, for example P2TR or P2WSH, and would achieve the same UTXO pollution, while also wasting one byte less per UTXO. So, blocking P2PK actually affects mainly some early adopters, who may need to use P2PK for that reason, or another, while leaving actual spammers completely unaffected, because they have a lot of options to choose from.

a P2PK output could conceivably be spent, so its data must be kept in the UTXO set permanently

Switching to storing data in private keys, and revealing them through weak signatures, solves that problem completely. And it already happened in practice, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20251108213635/https://www.bitmex.com/blog/the-unstoppable-jpg-in-private-keys

Under this criterion I think banning P2PK but allowing the equivalent multisig trick makes no sense though...

Don't worry, they plan to block 1-of-15 multisig: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/422

However, if for example 2-of-3 or 15-of-15 multisig will be unaffected, then guess what: weak signatures will still allow pushing the same data. And even if the cost of doing so will be bigger, low price per coin will still make it doable, and probably still cheaper, than on a non-BIP-110 chain.

[Danish Ali]

Then, why P2TR or P2WSH is not banned as well? If you compare compressed P2PK, then it is one byte more, than in P2TR.

Fair point about P2TR/P2WSH being equal/cheaper per byte and able to contain the fake pubkey data just as well. That argument demolishes the UTXO-bloat theory, imo; if minimizing the UTXO set size forever was the goal, then those would need to be banned.

Switching to storing data in private keys, and revealing them through weak signatures, solves that problem completely.

This is the real killer for the theory, honestly. It sidesteps the "must stay in the UTXO set" argument completely, since the data lives in something that was never in the UTXO set to begin with.

non-BIP-110: sending to P2PK + spending it: 204 bytes + 305 bytes = 509 bytes
BIP-110: sending to P2WPKH + spending it: 191 bytes + 339 bytes = 530 bytes

IMHO the bigger problem is that we are leaving other, perhaps equally or even more problematic spends unaddressed. P2PK passes every test that the other spends pass; we just picked one obvious pattern to restrict without establishing if it's the worst offender according to some principled metric. It gives the illusion that we're doing something about spam but aren't, and IMO that's worse than having no restriction.

Also, it is funny to see, that they consider Satoshi's early transactions to be incompatible with BIP-110. Was Satoshi a spammer?

Good catch on this too, if your filtering rules retroactively flag genuine early payments as incompatible, that's a pretty strong signal the rule is targeting a shape rather than actual spam behavior.

[ABCbits]

Guess I know what I am going to be doing later this week.

So.....
Anyone taking credit for this?
https://mempool.guide/tx/453d77ba2803878cd14def995f9ae55c73d42fb8886a810e1748cddae0b08da5

I was curious how long it will take till we see porn on blake...blakeporn... sounds already like a porn category
Now, if someone is willing to risk a Discord ban and tell the blaketards about them and record the meltdown, I would be immensely grateful.

Under this criterion I think banning P2PK but allowing the equivalent multisig trick makes no sense though...

Don't worry, they plan to block 1-of-15 multisig: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/422

However, if for example 2-of-3 or 15-of-15 multisig will be unaffected, then guess what: weak signatures will still allow pushing the same data. And even if the cost of doing so will be bigger, low price per coin will still make it doable, and probably still cheaper, than on a non-BIP-110 chain.

I don't check the actual code yet, but it seems to works by counting total size of M keys (without it's signature) as part of DatacarrierBytes with certain tolerance or threshold.

But if i were spammer, i'll just switch to OP_PUSHDATA1, which should be about as cheap as current 1-of-15 multisig. For example, https://mempool.guide/tx/9c34287f805e622b86ac140ef10475750214cf60c3310441b9b9ea9f429bb1bc.

P.S. If someone is bold enough, consider mentioning that link as real example on the PR discussion.

[stompix]

Don't worry, they plan to block 1-of-15 multisig: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/422

However, if for example 2-of-3 or 15-of-15 multisig will be unaffected, then guess what: weak signatures will still allow pushing the same data. And even if the cost of doing so will be bigger, low price per coin will still make it doable, and probably still cheaper, than on a non-BIP-110 chain.

Oh no....where am I going to store my porn for free?

But if i were spammer,

I think that the guys over at knots are missing the point about this spam, ok they will block pics videos, archives...
So, will this cut spam? Of course not!

You can block everything and allow only 1 input 1 output tx standard, there will still be spam, I'm not even digging into the numbers but with around 1/30 in/out tx at 1 sat/vb it will cost around 0.01 BTC in fees, since blaketard blocks are only 30% of Bitcoin and the price per coin is $400, this is about one discounted pretzel price per block, around $1.3 at max.
So in order to fill all their blocks with standard but useless tx you need to spend roughly $400 a day, assuming they do have some native tx to occupy some space too.

What's the economic value of this, lol?
https://mempool.guide/address/bc1qezla2sc32jtv2grhfy2zwwpfy3wmdfhnqnpr2a

[DaveF]

...
You can block everything and allow only 1 input 1 output tx standard, there will still be spam, I'm not even digging into the numbers but with around 1/30 in/out tx at 1 sat/vb it will cost around 0.01 BTC in fees, since blaketard blocks are only 30% of Bitcoin and the price per coin is $400, this is about one discounted pretzel price per block, around $1.3 at max.
So in order to fill all their blocks with standard but useless tx you need to spend roughly $400 a day, assuming they do have some native tx to occupy some space too.
...

And they would at that point start bragging that their chain is so popular that their blocks are always full.
Way outside of my programming ability, but makes you wonder how difficult it would be for someone to write a script that just keeps pushing crap to their chain all day.
I mean think about it. Just 1000s and 1000s of jpgs all day long.

Side question, in addition to bitfiles.io that @athanred mentioned are their any others that will put things on the 110 chain? Figure we should compile a list and test them all to verify that they work properly :-)

-Dave