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.

[athanred]

News flash: my brainchild sidechain shitcoin has inflation bug but I can't stop paying attention to Luke-Jr

You know, it is all about entertainment. Improving things in a stable and predictable way is too boring. Serious discussions are in other places, on this forum, people want to just have some fun.

Another thing is that again, some of my predictions were correct:

Blake2b already has Asic miners.

Not only that: they also enabled Merged Mining. Which is a good idea in itself, but you have to trace the heaviest chain properly, otherwise it can be attacked in exactly the same way, as Luke attacked CoiledCoin in the past.

So, if you use the same mining algorithm, as some other altcoin, and if you enable Merged Mining on your coin in a "naive way", when you don't trace the global difficulty for a given mining algorithm, then guess what: altcoiners with bigger hashrate can attack you. Not because they hate you, but because you left the door wide open, and prepared incentives for them to do so. Just like Luke used his pool to attack CoiledCoin, today's altcoiners can attack BIP-110 chain in a similar way. Also, the higher the BIP-110 price is, the more incentive there would be, to launch an attack, because for the same hashrate, you would get more coins.

Do they really not realize that creating a new address requires no effort?

First, if they would really want to fight with the spam, instead of forking for the sake of forking, then they would introduce their changes in a no-fork way. Also, because their consensus requires the last SHA-256 block to be set to 00000000000000000001bbc439e13f749dca850d32c7a2834165338713027e65, they don't have to store the first 961,639 blocks at all, and they could use just some UTXO snapshot, because reorging blocks beyond that point is invalid in their consensus. But well, if they want to test things in production, instead of planning them in advance, then it is their choice.

[ABCbits]

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

This makes me wonder what kind of PR we might see, if someone decide to create lots of spam/arbitrary data TX on their chain rather than just selling the coin.

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.

It's also worth to mention that the miners/mining pool could both,
1. move their BIP110/BTCB2 coin to other address
2. update their software to generate new address for each different block height

as soon as they see this PR, which makes the PR have no effective impact to them.

[Satofan44]

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.

They have completely lost the plot, but they want to claim that this is the "real" Bitcoin?  Continued desperation will lead to more extreme measures, they are already similar to a cult.

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 

The good thing about all of this is that luke will lose the remaining bits of reputation that he had. There are still people who are caught in the middle of all of this, let's call them weak-independent who believe some of the arguments of Knots especially since the narrative is about saving Bitcoin which can be sold. I've heard of people here and there at conferences that have switched to running Knots for one reason or another, but they have some strict beliefs with which this kind of behavior is not compatible.

[athanred]

someone decide to create lots of spam/arbitrary data TX on their chain rather than just selling the coin

It is too early for that, because the price per coin is still too high. Now, people sell it, because it is profitable. Spamming will be profitable later, when the price will be dumped completely, and then, if buying whole coins with a bunch of satoshis will be possible, then more spam could appear. Or, if some people will be stuck with some dust, which will be too small to sell, then burning it into fees may be reasonable, while also showing, that data can still be pushed in many ways.

[DaveF]

....Given the launch of a fork is a one time event with special stability considerations, I think it would be totally reasonable to have some kind of hack to prevent a circus.....

Was thinking about that statement over some coffee. And looking at some of the changes that were made I am wondering will it be a one time thing.

Not quite like 2017, but with 110 forking and forking and forking as people find out that it's not working the way they expected it to and now have to keep "fixing" it.

Much like they are thrashing about now with 1 mining pool having too much hash.

But, as they make these changes some nodes and some miners are not going to update so it forks.

Don't know, really don't care that much. At this point it's more just interesting to watch and talk about.

-Dave

[DaveF]

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.

And for today's new idea.



https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2097975814985851114

So everyone paying for electric or hosting or whatever, you don't see money for a month or at all if they go with the original drop it to 0 plan. I know, lets do both.
Lets see if they actually do anything or if it's just talk.

-Dave

[stompix]

So everyone paying for electric or hosting or whatever, you don't see money for a month or at all if they go with the original drop it to 0 plan. I know, lets do both.
Lets see if they actually do anything or if it's just talk.
-Dave

But why a month?
It would be better to have them locked for 4 years so every coin gets spent only in the next halving 
I'm genuinely surprised he said he is going to settle to 100 blocks, that's nothing at their pace and even with normal time it's just 2/3 of a day, I thought he was going to go really crazy, cutting the reward completely and stuff like that.

He has lost the plot completely, at this point, I don't think there is a single person on this planet he doesn't see as an enemy!

[athanred]

It would be better to have them locked for 4 years so every coin gets spent only in the next halving

There is a way to move coins into the future. It is called "locktime". And it can be done in a soft-fork way, by just locking coins to some future block numbers, like "1234567 OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP OP_TRUE". Then, future miners will get them later.

However, will miners agree to earn less, than they currently can get, and activate this soft-fork? Because if not, then what? Another Proof of Work change, just because they didn't?

I thought he was going to go really crazy, cutting the reward completely and stuff like that.

If he would cut it completely, then the promise of 21 million coins would be broken, because it would be less than that, depending on how many he would decide to burn. But again: burning coins is also doable by a soft-fork. And again, miners will have an incentive to not activate it, because they will get less rewards. No matter if coins will be burned or locked, miners would have an incentive to do a workaround over such rules, and claim these coins as fees instead.

[MoparMiningLLC]

Luke did suggest cutting the subsidy - block reward - to zero.

miners would only get fees no new coins.

[PrivacyG]

Does Luke wake up in front of a white board every day trying to find the worst idea he can come up with?

I suggest Miners do not earn any thing.  Not even out of Fees.  How dare they.  What are they, legitimate Bitcoin supporters or money hungry businesses?

-----

He has lost the plot completely, at this point, I don't think there is a single person on this planet he doesn't see as an enemy!

'I lost my Bitcoin so Bitcoin may now as well die' is the way he thinks.  He is a Bitcoin nihilist.  Is there any term for that?  If not then there should be one.  Bithilist?