Santa Deniers down bad this morning
Merry Christmas!
Rob Hamilton
rob@primal.net
npub1emdt...c9aw
Someone please let @Luke Dashjr @Dathon Ohm and @Bitcoin Mechanic that there has been a PR submitted which fixes all of the functional tests and CI tests failing for the Release Candidate version 0.1 for their soft fork:
The current activation client that has been promoted fails tests written to verify the fork works as intended as well as Continuous Integration testing.
GitHub
Stabilize CI and Tests for BIP-110 (REDUCED_DATA) by Claude 🤖 by Rob1Ham · Pull Request #2 · dathonohm/bitcoin
PR: CI and Test Fixes for BIP-110 (REDUCED_DATA) Implementation
Context and Motivation
This pull request was authored by an autonomous agent opera...
I am today years old to realize there was an RHR discount code for @SoapMiner 😂
The @SoapMiner lip balm is very underrated.
Me pulling up to this weeks @RABBIT HOLE RECAP to check in on the super cycle with @MartyBent and @ODELL
Rob Stragegy has added 6 additional bars of @SoapMiner soap to the Hamilton Strategic Soap Reserve
I have now fully open sourced the code which creates this on-chain BIP-444 futures contract!
The contract starts with an atomic deposit into the contract address of 1 BTC each (to make sure both parties put in the same amount into the contract address).
Context: BIP-444 makes the use of OP_IF & OP_NOTIF consensus INVALID upon activation.
The contract is built as follows:
The taproot address uses the NUMS point as described in BIP341, to provably show the key path is not active.
We have two parties, a "YES" (444 activates) and "NO" (444 does NOT activate). YES and NO for short.
The first leaf is a 2 of 2 multisig of both parties. This exists to be able to self send the UTXO AFTER BIP 444 activates. This is because BIP-444 just added a clause that UTXOs created before activation will NOT have the BIP-444 consensus rules applied to them. This self send removes that exception.
The second leaf: has 2 ways you can spend with it, a 2 of 2 (YES and NO) multisig, just like the first leaf OR the NO party, with a time lock which is LESS THAN the third tap leaf. This is important because it uses OP_NOTIF
The Third Leaf: The YES party can spend, after a time lock AFTER the second leaf.
The order of the timelocks is important. If BIP-444 activates, the spending condition that can spend before you will be consensus invalid, so it doesn't matter if you believe 444 activates.
So to summarize:
- If BIP-444 DOES activate, the party who believes it will be able to use the second tap leaf to get 2 BTC out.
- If BIP-444 DOES NOT activate, the party who believes that will use the third tap leaf to get 2 BTC out.
Since each side is highly confident in their position, the fair market price is a 1:1 ratio, implying 50% likelihood.
With 85 days until activation, this contract as written gives you an implied ~430% APY on your bitcoin! The risk is being incorrect on your opinion of BIP-444 activating.
You could modify the collateral each side puts up to get different implied odds of the futures contract as well.
Github: 
Address: 
Anyone who wants to take the BIP-444 WILL activate side, let me know! The Author of the BIP has agreed to this, I have already asked for a larger bet size beyond the 1 BTC I initially proposed, but I have more!
The contract starts with an atomic deposit into the contract address of 1 BTC each (to make sure both parties put in the same amount into the contract address).
Context: BIP-444 makes the use of OP_IF & OP_NOTIF consensus INVALID upon activation.
The contract is built as follows:
The taproot address uses the NUMS point as described in BIP341, to provably show the key path is not active.
We have two parties, a "YES" (444 activates) and "NO" (444 does NOT activate). YES and NO for short.
The first leaf is a 2 of 2 multisig of both parties. This exists to be able to self send the UTXO AFTER BIP 444 activates. This is because BIP-444 just added a clause that UTXOs created before activation will NOT have the BIP-444 consensus rules applied to them. This self send removes that exception.
The second leaf: has 2 ways you can spend with it, a 2 of 2 (YES and NO) multisig, just like the first leaf OR the NO party, with a time lock which is LESS THAN the third tap leaf. This is important because it uses OP_NOTIF
The Third Leaf: The YES party can spend, after a time lock AFTER the second leaf.
The order of the timelocks is important. If BIP-444 activates, the spending condition that can spend before you will be consensus invalid, so it doesn't matter if you believe 444 activates.
So to summarize:
- If BIP-444 DOES activate, the party who believes it will be able to use the second tap leaf to get 2 BTC out.
- If BIP-444 DOES NOT activate, the party who believes that will use the third tap leaf to get 2 BTC out.
Since each side is highly confident in their position, the fair market price is a 1:1 ratio, implying 50% likelihood.
With 85 days until activation, this contract as written gives you an implied ~430% APY on your bitcoin! The risk is being incorrect on your opinion of BIP-444 activating.
You could modify the collateral each side puts up to get different implied odds of the futures contract as well.
Github: GitHub
GitHub - Rob1Ham/BIP-444-Futures: On chain futures contract on the activation of BIP-444
On chain futures contract on the activation of BIP-444 - Rob1Ham/BIP-444-Futures
The Mempool Open Source Project®
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.
A new prediction market has started!
The question is: Will @Luke Dashjr or @Bitcoin Mechanic acknowledge any prediction or futures market as "legitimate" for the "Reduce Data Temporary Soft Fork".
Odds opened up at 50% and have now gone down to 18%.
I've now been banned from the Knots Telegram channel by @Bitcoin Mechanic where I earlier today saw @Luke Dashjr that he plans his fork being enforced because all mining pools who disagree with him will be thrown in jail.
The debate is over. Enough is enough.
These are attackers of the network willing to throw people in prison to exert their will on the network. If you don't explicitly reject their fork efforts and their actions you are actively complicit with a lawfare style take over of the Bitcoin protocol.
Tell me what the odds need to be moved to @Luke Dashjr and @Bitcoin Mechanic .
I put up two bitcoin you put up one?
3 to 1?
What do you price it at?
I'm being persecuted and slandered for being a hunble risk merchant.
Twitter vs Nostr in two images.
Can’t block me here @Bitcoin Mechanic and @Luke Dashjr 😇
Give me your preferred wording of the prediction market, or take me up on the on chain trustless one I proposed.
Also, any futures market you support I’ll be able to post screenshots of the odds anyway, so you’re really in a pickle, trying to make it about me and not the greater point I’m making.
Ball is in your court, and even if you think I’m trolling, you’re letting me troll you a lot more by not taking up the bet than avoiding it and not picking up guaranteed bitcoin from your perspective.
There isn’t 1 BTC of conviction in you side of the fork? That’s not a good signal.
