Replies (71)
The intention is to prevent bitcoin from scaling and forcing the market into paper bitcoin.
He literally partnered up with an RWA shitcoiner to create ocean and next minute he's saying core are shitcoiners for helping bitvm/citrea.
And all this comes after getting a bunch of core devs doxxed to the fbi, which in turn came after being retarded enough to let someone take his coins from "cold storage".
I would simply add that bip110 is solving a non existing problem. Is bitcoin working as it should? Yes. Are normal transactions being crowded out by nfts and whatnot? No. Then what are you even trying to do???
How can anyone be sure the coins were actually stolen and not just conjoined by himself?
Always accuse the other side of what you are doing is another fed tactic. The more I learn the more I see my instincts about dash are correct.
Lol, so at the end of the thesis, Bitcoiners are wrong. You simply cannot have a secure, scarce, digital money. If double spend solve and a timestamp is not enough criterion to create a hard digital money. If a determined group can make the decentralization moot by increasing computing burden when not "anyone can run a node" then what can be done beside abandon the project.
Is that the take away you wanted? Abandon Bitcoin because spammers will always destroy the system and there's no workable way to stop them?
Cheery outlook.
Would you support Core reverting v30 changes to OP_RETURN?
From what I’ve seen of BIP110 proponents (and I can’t speak of Luke’s views because he blocked me years ago and I have previously warned of Bitcoin Luke’s Vision) - they are monetary maximalists, they do not want paper Bitcoin and will sacrifice NGU for that. So to say they want paper markets to dominate I’d say is completely mischaracterising them.
Core is fukt IMO.
Gloria should never have been maintainer - that is obvious. She sucked cock to get there.
Andrew wants to chop his dick off and can push code which will break my life savings if he can’t be bothered fixing it. What he does depends on whether he feels like Andrew or Ava when he opens his laptop and I wouldn’t let such a person anywhere near me but he can do open heart surgery on my money if he likes..
So how about a reset? How about Core cops to what they did, they eject Andrew for being completely fucking unstable, they commit to not rolling changes that were majority NACKed by the community and we start fresh?
Could you accept that?
Kinda.
The only reason ANYBODY gives a fuck is because they don't want NGD.
#Bitcoin forks aren't a problem.
Incredible. Thanks for posting this. If you read through this website and still think the knots narrative is sound you really are not going to make it.
110, on the surface, seems like over-compensation, but I haven't put in the time to have a real opinion
Incredible retarded take.
@ManyKeys @ODELL
what do you think about the thousands of v30 fans still running a banned version by the core itself ?
bad look for a critical infrastructure, no? 🤷🏻♂️
keep clean the net-chain 🪢🛡️⚒️🌊
Forks being possible doesn't make consensus-level data filtering harmless. The question isn't whether hash follows value. It's whether a committee gets to define what 'legitimate data' looks like before hash even gets a vote.
A Bitcoin Node Runner’s 7 Rules for Self-Sovereignty
1. Nodes enforce the rules.
Bitcoin’s consensus is enforced by nodes — not miners, not developers, not companies. If you don’t run a node, you are trusting someone who does.
2. Lightweight is not optional — it is the defense.
Bitcoin was engineered so ordinary people can verify it. If running a node becomes expensive or complex, decentralization erodes. Accessibility is a security model.
3. Raising node costs weakens the network.
Any proposal that materially increases hardware, bandwidth, or storage requirements must be treated as a potential centralizing force. The base layer exists for secure monetary settlement — nothing more.
4. Bitcoin is a protocol, not an industry.
There is no “Bitcoin industry” to protect. There is only a protocol individuals use to store and transfer value. Changes that serve corporate or non-monetary agendas over monetary integrity undermine the system.
5. Stewardship requires action.
If someone claims to defend Bitcoin’s monetary purpose but tolerates base-layer expansion that threatens decentralization, their incentives deserve scrutiny.
6. Open source is part of sovereignty.
Bitcoin is open-source software. Running it on proprietary systems introduces dependence. Sovereignty and closed platforms do not align.
7. Convenience is not sovereignty.
Corporate-packaged node solutions, auto-update containers, and “one-click” systems may reduce friction — but they increase trust assumptions. Real sovereignty means minimizing reliance on third parties.
Rug the Spammers
Large non-monetary data has nothing to do on Bitcoin Monetary network. Inscriptions were achieved as an exploit. Calling this censorship is completely dishonest - "consensus-level censorship of “non-monetary”". Bitcoin is Freedom Money, not a file cloud storage.
This is the next lie here:
"Far from protecting #Bitcoin, this faction is pushing arbitrary consensus-level censorship of “non-monetary” data based on subjective judgments about what is “spam,” a slippery slope"
BIP 110 limits ALL arbitrara large non-monetary data.
From BIP 110 wiki:
"
New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.
OP_PUSHDATA* payloads and witness stack elements exceeding 256 bytes are invalid, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 scriptSigs.
Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141, Taproot/BIP 341, or P2A) is invalid. (Creating outputs with undefined witness versions is still valid.)
Witness stacks with a Taproot annex are invalid.
Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes (a merkle tree with 128 script leaves) are invalid.
Tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS* opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid.
Tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction (regardless of result) are invalid.
"
GitHub
bips/bip-0110.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.
BIP 110 massively reduces spam on Bitcoin and actually stops large OP_RETURNs and other large data that abuses Bitcoin
BIP 110 stops inscriptions and other spam as well
BIP 110 limits ALL large data on Bitcoin Monetary network.
I thought that was just about foot-gun risk for wallets, nothing to do with the network. Am I wrong?
Bitcoin mempool and blockchain is for monetary transactions.
Spam currently takes more than 36% of the blockchain space and brings less than 1% of revenue for the miners.
It devalues Bitcoin, its a waste, it makes running a node harder and it hinders decentralization.
There are memcoins for spam and jpegs. Bitcoin is Freedom Money.
Issue #3 - Three Years of Spam
From zero to 36%: a timeline
Spam is getting larger.
Exactly.
nope, besides the risk, it outs all the shady irresponsible dudes going "let it run even if it’s garbage"
Yes, the compromised Core devs banned Core V30 because of the critical bug that deletes wallets and all Bitcoin.
But their reckless change of OP_RETURN from 80 Bytes to 100 000 Bytes does have an effect on the network.
Large OP_RETURN increases the risk of CSAM because it makes easier to add large data / jpegs via the network and not only directly via miners who a liable when they directly add data.
People can do whatever they want.
If you dont like the current governance and you're confident hash will follow value, fork around and find out.
Forking after the filter is already in place isn't a vote. It's damage control. The data deemed 'illegitimate' never made it to a block in the first place. Hash can't follow value it never saw.
life is hard isn't it?
Total size vertical is all zero
You think spam helps scaling? retarded take. removing arbitrary data does not hurt scaling, it helps it, leaving more room for channel opens, closes, monetary transactions. Please enlighten me as to how a single 4mb jpeg taking up a whole block is going to fucking HELP scaling?
A dying fork can have all the nodes it wants. If mining power has no incentive to support it, it will quickly become irrelevant. An adequate number of nodes is important for censorship resistance, but beyond that, economically incentivised mining power is the boss. I wish people would realize that node count is nearly irrelevant. Non economic nodes are in reality only valuable for the node runner's privacy and personal coin verification.
1. KnotsLies literally used Mara slipstream to avoid filters because they work
2. BIP-110 would have blocked that image being made from contiguous data. Author literally admits it and makes tons of other false equivalencies
No, what he's saying is that making it BIP-110 compatible requires more tricks but is nonetheless possible without breaking continuity.
From BIP 110 wiki:
"
New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.
OP_PUSHDATA* payloads and witness stack elements exceeding 256 bytes are invalid, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 scriptSigs.
Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141, Taproot/BIP 341, or P2A) is invalid. (Creating outputs with undefined witness versions is still valid.)
Witness stacks with a Taproot annex are invalid.
Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes (a merkle tree with 128 script leaves) are invalid.
Tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS* opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid.
Tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction (regardless of result) are invalid.
"
GitHub
bips/bip-0110.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.
If the knots guys don’t get their way. They will spam the chain
@ODELL ? But these guys who think it’s dumb decide to spam the chain via slipstream
So the solution is to not resist ?
The system Bip 110 claims to “fix” is Bitcoin Core no longer being antagonistic towards arbitrary data. Bitcoin Core is broken.
Did I say that spam helps scaling? No. Grow a brain.
Remember Mike Hearn? History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. The Knots fork smells the same as XT and Cash, and their proponents were equally as confident and misguided.
It's painfully obvious but unfortunately none of the knots people have been in bitcoin for very long (vast majority seem to be making the kind of mistakes that are only made by the post 2016 crowd) and will take a couple more cycles to understand.
He's too much of a pussy to lie to the FBI.
It makes sense for mempool relay policy to match consensus policy, otherwise you give an unfair advantage to large miners.
80% of the community are new to bitcoin but think they know everything because they listened to some podcasts and read some books, and wearing other people's opinions like a jacket. Only a small percentage has been around long enough to have actually lived through the last time this happend with Mike and then Jihan.
From my perspective, Core has been under attack for well over a decade, which is why most people quit and the competence level keeps dropping. We definitely have a problem, but Luke and his cult sending death threats etc are just the latest useful idiots in a long line of them which to my memory really started with Mike.
The best option is to pile in with Eric Voeskuil and libbitcoin.
Bip 110 is an attack on a permissionless censorship resistant system. Reject Bip 110
Rejecting bip 110 would be the real problem. Since core 30 was launched - Bitcoins’ largest liquidation event in history happened days later, lowest fear and greed index, Adam back was proven to be meeting Epstein, core devs made changes in order to satisfy VC funded and corporate interests (e.g., easier support for layer-2 rollups, metadata, inscriptions, NFTs, or DeFi apps on Bitcoin ) making Bitcoin susceptible to non monetary data storage.
I could go on for days….
It’s a soft fork, restricting rules. If you use Bitcoin as money, it’s a welcome and long awaited improvement - a return to what it was before it centralized at the node level.
Miners are employees of the network. The network is controlled by nodes because node runners own the land where bitcoin lives. The miners are but serfs on the land. The extra fees from spam dust are not a strong enough incentive when only a couple of miners have the spam profitting VC firms backing them. When other miners can easily get more blocks and coinbase on a clean chain they switch over and leave the spam blocks to die.
Then why not prove it? Is it not trivial? Doesn't that just prove that the roadblocks make it very difficult?
Resist to what? Personally, I would resist to bad engineering & bad faith, which in my view is *both* core v30 and BIP110.
If we keep going down that path, it could very well kill bitcoin. I want quality contributors & quality contributions. I think everyone should enforce have the same high standards.
I still think spam issues can be mitigated, but this needs to be done well by someone who's level-headed, not as some personal vendetta that doesn't care for the consequences.
I would agree with you here. I think he had to put significant efforts into it, and I think it would be both harder and more expensive to make it BIP110 compatible.
So basically he's making two points:
- A motivated state actor will always be able to put contiguous csam on bitcoin if they decide to do so. — you just won't fix that.
- If we make it more expensive for spammers, we might end up in a situation where the spam becomes more damaging in order to get in anyway.
However, he's also showing that counter-measures make spamming significantly more difficult. The problem being, once someone writes and standardize a work-around, it becomes easy again (just more expensive).
Personally I would still favor easy/non-damaging counter-measures, but not as aggressive as BIP110 that will clearly come back to bite us.
Just because you failed at doing the right thing doesn't mean you should suddenly engage in doing the wrong one. Tearing the community apart in a sloppy engineering contest & personal attacks is not going to fix anything.
That’s a sin both sides have committed. The community is responding to what they deem as I unacceptable. Some people are here for more than fiat gains.
There is nothing subjective about ordinals, inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens as spam.. they don’t belong, so us plebs will do what is necessary to make it difficult for them to exist.. This will all just be another test for the network, embrace the carnage 🤗
When both side are wrong, picking one is wrong. "The community" is mostly busy building or living their life & lost interest in that little war a long time ago.
Lived through this twice before with Mike and then Jihan and it will end the same way.
This was never about stopping spam. The Knots crowd will have to learn the hard way just like those who got the mRNA vaccines had to learn the hard way that it was never about stopping covid.
Just like to add, we’re not opposing for the sake of it. It is the failure of the anti-110 to construct a clear and valid reason to oppose. You have yourselves to blame.
I checked out after the word sacrosanct. You should have studied systems engineering or computer science instead of creative writing.
That’s a real non-answer. I thought you felt strongly about this?
MARA already had Slipstream and Libre Relay already existed pre v30 and was there any issue with mempools?..
So why did Core need to sanction new defaults and had originally slated deprecation of datacarriersize entirely? That last point is important if you want to engage this topic properly. I think that is what forced the BIP110 hand to counter, how far Core were willing to go even if they didn’t pull the trigger - they showed their hand and forced the issue.
Core is always going to be under attack, it’s the weakest Link in Bitcoin. Having paid Devs at this point is making it worse - either Devs have been around long enough and understood it well enough to free themselves from needing a monthly paycheck or they shouldn’t be touching it. If that means Bitcoin dev slows down 80% I don’t think anyone in the crowd you’re criticising would have a problem with it.
Eric is no better than Luke and in many ways worse. I respect his brain more but he’s softer than a wet paper bag; if he had the lead implementation I’d give Bitcoin a year before it fell over from something he missed but was warned about and dismissed. His ego is out of control; not that Luke is much better.
But back to the original point - Core started this, you’re complaining about reactions; fair enough.
Core could end this by reverting v30 - should they do that for the good of Bitcoin? Or should we have a Mexican standoff play out which benefits absolutely fucking no-one and almost certainly someone is getting shot in the head by the end of this?
Ok emdash
Who said we can't do anything about it though? Certainly not me. ✊
Fair. That’s all most of are saying. A reasonable approach. I’m with you ! I think we all agree on most things. But our small differences amplified by a few just make it worse. Same with anything tho really.
It was already done though
Only one of the sides ignored the mailinglist and the arguments raised there.
So why did Core need to sanction new defaults and had originally slated deprecation of datacarriersize entirely?
It was explained on the mailinglist. If you read it you would've known.
Fully agreed, multiple layers of divide & conquer strategies. We need level-headed peers who stay unswayed by it, and know how to expose their views without picking a war. 🤔
Interesting view. Though the counter to your view is that non-monetary bloat will also cause centralisation via increased cost of infrastructure and data. Being in Africa and rural this is a key factor in my Knots support, being lean and mean. With that inevitability keeping node infrastructure as lean and mean and economical as possible is the alternative which is the Knots’ proponent main point.
Centralisation and market forces will happen but at the lighting layer, ETF, treasury etc. Economical efficiency and freedom of choice and association will filter at lightning layers. That is inevitable, as long as the node underpinning Bitcoin’s distribution is intact, economical and widely distributed Bitcoin will survive.
I see node centralisation as a bigger threat to Bitcoin than anything else. All arguments against this have failed to convince me otherwise.
In the UTXO set. It's bloated with garbage and it's a legitimate and very annoying problem.
It's also incredibly complex and far beyond the capability of most knots people to reason about becsuse they're all new to the scene (post 2016) and haven't done any of their own research. Spam has been discussed from every angle since 2008 before the first implementation even existed, if this were really about spam then the current debate would build on what's already in the literature, but it doesn't because this is about control not about spam.
Since you've put that much effort in, I'll spend time to give you a proper response in a few days once I've had time to think it through and articulate it clearly.
That attitude usually comes from a place of entitlement and laziness, at a time when it's easier than ever to educate yourself about bitcoin.
All I can suggest is to do your own research like everyone else, or you'll lose your economic power by following the wrong fork as has happened to many others with that attitude.
I spent too much time trying to convince ungrateful people (who called me a conspiracy theorist) why they should drop USD and store value in bitcoin (when it was below $100!).
I spent too much time trying to convince ungrateful people who made "money" from bitcoin not to buy shitcoins (that have all now gone to zero).
I spent too much time trying to explain to people why they shouldn't sell their btc to buy BCH.
At some point, all I can say is "sucks to be you" to people who get it wrong.
No one is entitled to other people's time to spoon feed them and guide into the right decision.
This train doesn't stop just because you don't understand what's going on and didn't put in the effort to understand it, the train will simply crush you if you get it wrong.
Superb 🥰
💯
A POST THIS LONG WITHOUT EVEN THE CARE TO CREATE PARAGRAPHS GETS AN AUTO-IGNORE RESPONSE FROM ME. OH AND GFY BOT
Paragraph it along your faggot arse, Meattard.
IF THE FIRST FEW SENTENCES WERENT RETARDED MAYBE I WOULD HAVE
