Where do you stand?
Login to reply
Replies (31)
Repost for better visibility.
View quoted note →
Looks like 🖕
ON MY FEET
BIP110 is 🖕to the spammers and scammers.
I should say I'm confused, but when I hear any proposed action advertised as "temporary" I immediately distrust it :shrug:
Can I try to convince you that in this case temporary means it’s best for you and me?
Core <v30 no updates
BIP-110 🫡
Oh ffs you made me go research it a bit 😄
Fair enough in this case temporariness is guaranteed and enforceable, which counters my kneejerk reaction.
Reducing the level of consensus required sounds dodgy though? Plus some are saying it will not actually stop spam, it will just make it adapt. From what I know about spam that sounds about right... which doesn't mean we should not fight it.
I am curious what you have to say, for sure.
Core 29, until @ProductionReady's client is ready
Remains vulnerable to CVE-2023-50428: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-50428
That could happen in years, and this version of core is also broken.
I’m not a Jew that loves the kiddos, so it’s 110 for me.
The way Bitcoin is🖕to the central banks.
> temporariness is guaranteed and enforceable
Not only that. It’s temporary to make sure any possible bugs in the code or unintended consequences (like with SegWit and Taproot) would expire automatically in 12 months, where with a permanent soft fork you might need to do a hard fork to reverse the changes. This BIP is the most conservative and thoughtful consensus change in Bitcoin’s history so far.
> Reducing the level of consensus required sounds dodgy though
Due to extreme mining centralisation you have not one but four pools with more than 10% hashrate share who can single-handedly veto any protocol level change. This was not the case in 2017 and 2021, therefore the bar was considerably higher.
> Plus some are saying it will not actually stop spam
That’s not even the goal of the BIP. The idea is to close known attack vectors in the code that are currently used primarily for abusing the network nodes’ resources. Here’s the explainer directly from the site:
lol production ready isn’t ready. It’s a scam, asking for funds without even a fucking single line of code.
That makes sense!
With the threshold so close to 50% though there is a risk of a fork and eventual loss of funds for everyone on the losing side of the fork?
I don’t think it’s a scam and client diversity should be encouraged. It’s what we learned from this conflict.
This risk is present with any signalling threshold. That’s why all rational miners should adopt the BIP before the threshold is reached and historically exactly this happened with BIP-148. Miners hated SegWit but had to activate it to avoid the risk of losing block rewards. I am pretty confident the same thing will happen in August, just before activation.
If there is no product… and no service, and no real solution proposed … then asking for funding makes it 100% a scam by definition.
idk / idc
According to the CVE description, this vulnerability only exists on Core <= v26.0. Presumably, Core >= v26.1 & <v30 would not be vulnerable.
Description:
“In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023. NOTE: although this is a vulnerability from the perspective of the Bitcoin Knots project, some others consider it ‘not a bug.’”
> Presumably, Core >= v26.1 & <v30 would not be vulnerable.
That would be wrong.
If you guys were firmly backing BIP110 the only support Core would be left with are scammers, grifters, degens, liars, low integrity devs and simpfluencers. Muddying the waters for plebs is what prevents BIP110 to have near unanimous support and the numbers are quite clear.
View quoted note →
This poll is providing quite different results than what the mainstream discourse is currently trying to push. 24h left to vote and repost.
View quoted note →
Please do explain yourself, otherwise I will conclude that you are wrong.
You will understand if you read this.
Long story short, core devs swept the CVE under the rug and declared it resolved by changing a readme file instead of fixing the bug.
Citadel21
The Merge — Citadel21
Last 90 minutes to vote and repost. The results are pretty interesting.
View quoted note →