Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr
luke_nostr@dashjr.org
npub1lh27...a9nk
Roman #Catholic, husband, father of 11 children, #Bitcoin Core developer, and CTO @npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze ; INTP; I condemn fake "Catholics", cryptobros & pedos; see full bio
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 4 days ago
I support BIP110 because Bitcoin is essential to the future of mankind and the last 8 months have proven it to be the best immediate solution to the critical injury inflicted by Core 30.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 6 days ago
On Saturday, a troll made a false "consensus failure" report about Bitcoin Knots. To put it simply: if Core corrupts your data, Knots sometimes can't detect the corruption. Since Core is late updating to BIP110, it can in some case corrupt the database after activation. This is not a surprise nor a bug in Knots, much less a serious issue. Core also won't detect it; nor have most previous softforks guarded against it (eg, Taproot did not). The simple answer is: don't run software that corrupts your data. The deficiency in Core that can cause this corruption is only a risk starting in August. Upgrade to the latest Knots 29.3.knots20260508 before then. On Sunday, another fake "bug" was claimed by Murch. It's a complete fabrication. There is nothing to do. In both cases, there was zero disclosure to the project at all (much less responsible disclosure) - this is clearly a bad faith FUD campaign and will probably continue. If any real concerns were to surface, @Bitcoin Knots would post an announcement.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 2 weeks ago
Removing rules is a hardfork. That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110. Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt. And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed. There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 2 weeks ago
With respect to BIP110: Knots 20260508: Yes Old Knots: Yeah, but ask miners' permission Core <=29: Yeah, but ask miners' permission Core 30+: Okay, iff miners agree LibreRelay: Okay, iff miners agree Literally no node software actually *opposes* BIP110.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 3 weeks ago
Scammers and bad actors have been claiming BIP110 was "dead on arrival" or otherwise failed from the first day Dathon Ohm published it. It was fake news then, and it's fake news now. BIP110 has consensus and will still succeed if we hold the line.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 3 weeks ago
Happy Dependence on God day! Remember, every moment that we exist, we exist only because God continually wills and conserves us in being. Were He to withdraw that conserving will for even an instant, we would cease to exist.
Luke Dashjr's avatar
Luke Dashjr 3 weeks ago
BIP110 creates a rare opportunity for bitcoiners we should take advantage of: Unlike most consensus changes, it is extremely simple: with only 5 modified lines of code and 72 added, across 5 source code files, we can explain it in a way anyone can understand. Take a look. Review BIP110 yourself: