kratter ran peter thiels money before pivoting to become luke and mechanics attack dog
rich for him to lecture anyone on ethics
Login to reply
Replies (165)
Finally I have a little kire charity on this issue. There are ppl on both sides I respect (profoundly) BUT Matt & @MartyBent are the few GOOD DECENT TRUTH SEEKING FREEDOM FIGHTERS in this space.
When they talk … I listen!
@RABBIT HOLE RECAP this week was smokin’ !!!!
Rabbit Hole Recap • REJECT HOSTILE FORKS OF BITCOIN | RABBIT HOLE RECAP #397 • Watch on Fountain
my hands are not “tied by investors”
my track record is proof, i call things as i see it even if it hurts my “popularity”
@ODELL I'm genuinely skeptical of BIP 110 (and all soft forks for that matter), but I would find it far more helpful if you shared less ad hominem and speculation about bad actors, and focused more on critical analysis of the BIP itself.
From my understanding, the BIP sounds relatively harmless particularly given its 1 year limited effect. It sounds like the main issue is that a contentious fork which is forced through could cause a re-org. Any other risks with the BIP?
Are we going to try and slander people for their occupations before finding Bitcoin? I’m sure that was something he regrets, or else he wouldn’t be doing the work he does now.
Also - Kratter doesn’t even accept zaps for getting his message out - unlike you. He doesn’t even rely on weak arguments or resorting to ad hominem attacks to prove his point - you do it for him.
The point isn't what has happened, the point is what could happen, and likely will.
Nobody has yet presented a case for why large op_returns need to be anoption, indeed your own argument says they're not. So don't even allow them and everything is all good.
Do you have any plans to contribute some positive energy to the world, or are you content just being a whiney little bitch?
Do we not all agree Bitcoin is the better way? I think we do, so lets just remember that. By all means debate the various details on how it may operate, but keep one eye on the main prize here.
Nerds having egotistical pissing matches is doing nothing but harm to the image of Bitcoin.
Also, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who cares who this guy worked for in the past? And do you actually have any evidence of unethical or illegal behaviour? If not , best to stfu because slander is still slander even on here.
BIP110 is in play, so get over it. We'll see what happens in a year and go from there. I would suggest you find a more productive use of your time and energy than trying to control how people think. History says it always ends badly for control freaks.
Is that your repsonse to his video?! Basically a 6-year-old saying => «but what about you… buhuhuhuhuh»
You figured out that ignoring me is the safe strategy, surely you can figure out that ignoring Kratter and knotzis is all you need to do. You give them power when you say their names.
It’s a kind of casteism they practice
Plus he has been open about his connection to Thiel for years, as well as his connections to the new appointed FED chairman who was his colleague roommate.
And how many were before that?
Also, the spam data is a little bit more than 400MB, when you account for the time since it began to accumulate.
Yeah these little internal squabbles are pitiful in addition of being counterproductive for what should be our common goal, shrinking our overlords power.
I guess it's unavoidable when there is businesses and money at play but still cringe. We should be able to discuss without getting to angry at each other
He’s been open about this for years. Is this the best you can do little guy?
ten31, opensats, bitcoin park, 7+ years educating people in how to use freedom tech (not just freedom money), bitcoin policy institute, father...
If this is being a 'whiney little btich' and not productive, I've dread to think how you would judge me.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion, while defending your right to express it. I hope you find some peace this weekend.
lol when was the last time you watched his videos? 2021?
not really interested in reading your CV, maybe I'm old but 7 years happened just yesterday.
I look at the evidence I can see and all you're doing is engaging in unproductive ad hominems which achieve nothing but make yourself look terrible and create division.
and all over being able to store shit on other people's property.
and yes I had great weekend thanks. not entirely peaceful, was out doing lots of work on my property. productive work.
I watched all his videos and it’s enough for me. If I was well off I’d consider supporting him by buying his extra content
I’m no expert but as far as I can tell Bip 110 tightens the rules of Bitcoin so that only 83 bytes is allowed for op_return. It return to way Bitcoin was set up before core v30 allows the maximum amount of op_return.
If I have this wrong someone call me out on it
have some dignity dude. You really lost yourself. Gfy
you are an idiot tho
since bip110 has nowhere near consensus it will result in a chain split when they activate
the main chain will have blocks mined significantly faster than the bip110 chain
if miners switch to bip110 days, weeks, months after activation it will reverse every bitcoin transaction that happened on the main chain during that period
considering luke calls everyone that doesnt support his fork a pedo, the tactic he will use to try to get miners to switch seems obvious
What is your opinion of David Bailey?
Those scenarios are the reason why I still hold gold
I see your concern regarding miners switching after activation. But what is your concern about bip 110?
When investing in a bitcoin treasury CEO make sure to pay close attention to body language:
Here we have ChatGPT estimate David Bailey’s potential based solely on body language alone.
- Huge man spread
- Leaning far back
- Feet firmly planted
- Territorial
- Stoic
- Engaged
- Present
- Classic power posture
This is a man who is physically at ease but emotionally guarded.
His posture says, “You can ask me questions, but I don’t owe you energy.”
There’s a quiet dominance to the sprawl. He isn’t here to win you over. He’s here because he’s earned his seat.
Estimated Return Range based on body language:
Base Case (50th percentile):
8x –15x
Bull Case (90th percentile):
100x+
If his thesis is right and he executes (or attracts the team who can), the detachment and quiet confidence signal the kind of world-builder who changes the rules instead of playing the game. Bitcoin-style asymmetric upside.
If I had to assign a single expected return number based on a power-weighted average of outcomes:
~28x expected return
That’s factoring in:
• 10% chance of 100x+
• 40% chance of 10–20x
• 30% chance of 2–5x
• 20% chance of total failure
High volatility, high asymmetry. Definitely not a “safe” play, but could carry a whole fund if right.
In summary: Do not fade a man spreading his legs this wide.
View quoted note →
Not sure I'm getting the reference. American Hodl is married with kids, afaik. And generally like him, but he did sorta promote these investments 😞
lol I dunno. Didn't even think about that until you pointed it out
That doesn’t explain what bip110 actually does and how it’s a threat/attack.
How/why does it reverse transaction?
You guys need to do some sort of deep dive video explaining your side with some actual facts.
Just listen to the most recent RHR
Core started this! with their reckless OP_RETURN policy. This is on core.
While true, irrelevant. The risk of a chain split is not zero. The risk of csam on the chain is also not zero. The question is which is the bigger risk. I can see arguments for both.
Stonks are shipcoins.
Him responding to this attempted character assassination is
1. Appreciated
2. Prompt
3. Clear
This is likely deliberate as this is in stark contrast to those he has been publicly criticizing as of recent.
But it will only reverse "invalid" (relative to BIP-110 consensus rules) tx, most likely spam, not normal tx, correct ?
Because it’s more likely that bip110 will succeed than not. And even if it fails, it’s the right approach for the problem trying to solve and some battles are worth fighting for even if the odds might look against you.
They always skip the important parts.
Glad to have him on bitcoin's side now.
How childish does this have to get before it gets productive again?
No way. Is this true? Did clawbot verify
No
No, that is not what will happen. All mined blocks become invalid. So all transactions in them become unmined. Unless they happen to be mined in the other chain too.
Perfect time for a a large double spend...
Even considering an approach that might cause a reorg is hostile to bitcoin and bitcoiners.
@Matthew Kratter Get Em!
But won't BIP-110 valid tx always be included in both chain ?
That's not how that works. Nothing gets "unmined" The scenario ODELL is trying to describe is if no one supports BIP110 that chain stops because of so many invalid transactions on the main chain then miners switch completely to BIP110 and mine literally tens of thousands of blocks faster than everyone else can mine a single block on the main chain.
I hope I don't have to describe how improbable that outcome is.
It’s a threat to the donor/funding mechanism of Core/Odells companies.
Only if the miners on both sides mine at the same speed and there are no RBF transactions. And miners chose the same txes.
We are all on a journey... I used to love google and their products, I used to think Elon was doing good for humanity (many still do), I used to believe in many things as a result of "giving the benefit of the doubt" reinforced by the programming we were born into... In the end, those that can rise above their incentives to do what's right, regardless of the consequences and contrary to what they used to believe or what is popular, gain my respect and admiration. Those that double down on false beliefs to protect their standing in the fiat slave system, and demonize those that don't, are very easy to read over time as they exhibit the same actions, reactions, and demeanor.
With that said, I have immense respect and admiration for @Matthew Kratter @Luke Dashjr @Bitcoin Mechanic
Bitcoin is an impenetrable barrier to stealing human energy over time... Energy which was used to create the immense control structure that we wish to escape. To bring freedom, Bitcoin must remain absolutely sound as money, everything else is a distraction and a gradual attack and erosion of that.
This must be nonnegotiable, no matter the chaos, and will always (initially) come from the intolerant minority. Onward.
It is relevant. Core created this problem. If they reverse their OP_RETURN policy, things will cool down. It's up to them.
OK, I see the double spend reorg risk now, that would indeed be bad, but if BIP-110 would initially get accepted by most miners (55% signaling I believe) would you consider that as the ideal scenario ? (Since BIP-110 limits adjustment seams better for the protocol overall)
I was under the impression that that is what Luke has said he wants to do? That they only need a few percent of miners to get this going. I will be honest here, I probably do not pay enough attention to all the details here.
Some of my objections to BIP110 is the "rush", and the proponents trying to incite panic and fear. And it also being "temporary", which to me sounds like the opposite of sound money.
Fair correction. Difficulty adjustment does make the stealth-mine-then-flip scenario way harder than I laid out. But the original threat model wasn't really about secret mining. It's about the coordination risk during the window between soft fork activation and miner consolidation. If miners are split 60/40 on enforcement, you don't need a secret chain. You just need time. Every block that passes with that split is rolling dice on which chain ends up canonical. The attack isn't technical, it's social.
Again, with a 60/40 split in either direction, 1-2 block could be orphaned but that is not new. I can see if one does not like the restrictive nature of the soft fork, it seems like an attack but it is literally just how consensus works.
The only way I see an increased orphan block risk over 1-2 blocks would be if so called spammers incentivized the miners repetitively with multiple high priced non-compliant blocks. But then it would be a spam attack, not really the fork's attack.
I don't think a flagday activation is smart. If a majority of nodes and hashpower like these restrictive consensus policies, thats just how consensus works.
Fear is being utilized everywhere.
"Aren't you afraid that the Knotzis are going to chainsplit?"
"Aren't you afraid of CSAM on the blockchain?"
"Aren't you afraid that BIP 110 opens the door for governments to control bitcoin by pushing a softfork?"
"Aren't you afraid that your node will have to be a super computer to even validate transactions?"
Everyone is being a fear monger. Sift through the noise and find the truth.
appreciate you, Odell 🙏
I wish we could all see some good faith adjustments from Core. I don't know enough to even know what that might look like, but it would go a long way to calm things down. From the perspective of many of us, v30 was handled so badly that it's hard not to attribute bad motives to it.
Firing up a knots 110 node in a few weeks
In the past with the taproot soft fork it appeared that it was not an easy process to move ahead to activation. This increased my confidence towards bitcoin's stability, even after the spam bug was introduced.
Now with BIP-110 I can see that there is actually almost no restriction on pushing a hasty fork through the process. Its crazy how fast this has moved.
My two additional thoughts are:
1. If the rules allow this sort of action then it is a legit action, but perhaps a short-sighted design.
2. It is foolish to assume that if the option exists then it won' be used. You see the same thing in politics all the time i.e. the recently redistricting fights that were going on last year.
In the great game there is no morality. If you have options that are an advantage then you use them. Bitcoin is no different. My hope is that this leads to a variety of implementations and at least breaks up the software landscape.
There is a religious fever going on in 110 land, try talk to them. They are angry, big feelings.
Only one side is trying to rush through a consensus change.
And, please enlighten me to what that "consensus change" is.
we did some zap tests on this note… your profile only specifies a nip05 nostr address, but not a lightning address, so we tried to zap your nip05 address.... we made six attempts to⚡zap this note, at kiawtzin@bip110.org, over a period of 1 minute. in each case, we found that your lightning address service or server did not respond correctly. if you wanted to fix this... you could try getting a free rizful lightning address -- 
... if u get it set up, pls reply here so we can do this ⚡zap test again.
Rizful: Lightning Services
Free Lightning vaults, and instant, disposable Lightning Nodes.
Bip 110 would have the effect of putting spam into the UTXO set, harming node decentralisation, and the strict relay policy of Knots would centralise mining by encouraging miners to use out-of-band systems. It's an attack on all the important aspects of decentralisation, including Luke's desperate attempt to make himself the lead developer
This debate ended in early 2024 when, in response to Mara's Slipstream, the bitcoin network (without asking permission from Core or Knots) relaxed relay policy in order to defend mining decentralisation
Appreciate the input.
Where was the spam being placed before the return was increased? What is bip110 changing that results in incentivizing spam on UTXO‘s?
Is it removing op-return completely?
People just keep talking about what could happen as a result of bip110 but no one wants to explain exactly why/how it does this?
How long did it take before it became obvious who won the blocksize war?
I think you’re over estimating them a bit. There’s no chance a big miner will throw away weeks or days of revenue to switch to their dead chain. More likely it will just get no blocks at all and they will plan their next fork because these attention whore losers want more attention
not sure where you pulled “tens of thousands of blocks” from - a week is about a thousand blocks, a month is about four thousand blocks
its how the fork is designed and their intention
they believe that if they start to get any type of momentum on hash pivoting to their chain, the rest will follow due to the risk of the reorg wiping out their rewards
they will likely use threats to try to make it happen and will probably fail but its fucked up regardless
I was thinking you meant a delay of 3 months and maybe I was being hyperbolic but the point stands regardless, anything past 6 blocks is a vanishingly small likelihood if the support is as low as you think. Chainsplit risk is zero barring the proliferation of a URSF client. There are two possibilities:
1. BIP 110 fails immediately (10 noncompliant blocks after activation makes the hash power contest almost unwinnable for BIP110)
2. BIP 110 has moderate to high support making it the main chain.
Yeah. Maybe both Knots and Core will think long and hard before they make changes that the plebs disagree with. Ultimately it will force long term thinking. The BIP would have never been necessary without the OP Return issue.
we have never seen an attack like this before, and i wouldnt underestimate them, they will likely try to keep the bip110 chain limping along while spamming the other chain and threatening people
Hey Zaytun, your rational questions will not be answered here.
This is a place for non factual… “you shouldn’t look over there” rhetoric.
If you look over the fence… just don’t look over the fence. Blindly follow us instead. Lol
I am being facetious obviously. I don’t want it to be taken out of context though.
#runbip110
#bitcoin
Bitcoin LV 😅💩
Part of the calculus for miners when considering switching to Bitcoin Luke’s Vision (BLV), which they might if fees are higher over there due to transactions finding it harder to get included because of lack of miners, is the cost of turmoil and disruption on the Bitcoin market. Degradation of confidence could be devastating for hard-earned institutional buy-in. I highly doubt that anywhere close to half of the network will be interested in the latest narcissist-lead, fear-driven, fringe-group fork. May BLV be shorter lived than BSV.
I don’t see there being any incentive for miners to hash on the the forked chain.
The few miners who fell for the propaganda are already on Ocean pool, and specifically the “filtered” templates (since they offer templates with and without their filters). I think that amounts to less than 0.1% of the network hash today.
Hypothetically, even if they somehow get 5% of the hashrate, their blocks are going to be extremely slow for several difficulty epochs. I forget the exact threshold, but there’s a circuit breaker where difficulty can’t be lowered by more than N% per adjustment.
The only incentive is valid block propagation. To ensure payment. The only way you can ensure valid block propagation is to make blocks the highest percentage of blocks would find as valid. BIP 110 being stricter would have an advantage via this incentive. Because:
BIP 110 valid =Core valid
Core valid ≠ BIP 110 valid
That is the asymmetric incentive.
That would the the obvious fix. These guys should have back off in the first place, not sure what's wrong with them.
Well, except BitVM who've been working hard on scaling Bitcoin and will be banned from building onchain cause...?
Sure.
1- It will ban BitVM, a legitimate Bitcoin project and promising scaling avenue. According to bip110.org: "The 257-byte control block limit constrains large Taptrees. Advanced smart contracts like BitVM may need to wait until expiry or use testnet/sidechains." However, they also claim that they want to "All known monetary use cases remain fully functional and unaffected.", which is obviously deceptive.
2- It will prevent running other soft forks. They claim it's not an issue since it's "temporary" and "the process takes more than a year anyway", though there are convenants proposals that are following this process already and are needed to make Ark, another promising scaling solution, fully functional. I think there's a theme here.
3- They say it's temporary and only a year, just to see how it goes... However, either it's a good solution - then why temporary? Either it's a poorly-engineer/understood solution, or at least not something people would want as a permanent thing - then it should pass at all. We all now what "temporary means" in this "emergency contextes". The rhetoric itself is problematic, pushing temporary changes to an immutable ledge is as well, obviously.
4- They want to force-through, just like Core v30 did, in an escalation of bad engineering and poorly thought arguments. This *is* an attack in bitcoin.
Removing the OP_RETURN filter was wrong but BIP110 is sloppy engineer that will prevent scaling Bitcoin through BitVM & ARK. Way to shoot ourselves in the foot buddy.
They're both wrong and trying to impose they views on the community, they both need to be pushed back against.
You're attitude is malicious in itself, regardless or whether you're right or wrong. I guess Bitcoin future is the least of your concerns and it's all about ego then. 🤔
How embarrassing for you. Now you're promoting a hardfork?
you wont learn anything re BIP110 listening to the most recent RHR. @odell's rants were all emotional, personal attacks, with a FU conclusion based on speculation of the worst possible outcome of the BIP110 soft fork.
Yup. We got a cold war on out hands.
Initially Core V30 removed filters on OP_RETURN sizes that protects against spam. However, on the consensus level, OP_RETURN don't have a size limit so miners were already spamming data on chain anyway. Core V30 making this easier definitely sucks, especially considering the way they forced it despite community backslash, but the fact remains that the attack vector was there all along.
BIP110 is aiming at fixing that by making consensus changes, however it is poorly engineered and will also prevent several some of the most promising ways to scale bitcoin. Moreover, the way they're trying to force their bad solution through is hostile in itself and suggest that it is more about a personal vendetta than about bitcoin future. 🤔
This is a non-answer to the question.
Thanks for that info. 🤝
A chain split will create two chains, like when Bitcoin Cash happened and lost the split. It became a minority chain no ones care about; anyway there were funds loss because at first transactions would happen on both chains at once and stuff like that, it was a messy process & we definitely don't need that now.
The core purpose of bip110 is to keep UTXO small so that would help home node runners… don’t understand your reasoning
You didn’t explain what was the attack vector. All you said is Luke is calling people pedos and forcing them to upgrade. And even this is not true.
Bip110 is a soft fork you retard
You lack respect, integrity, and intelligence.
Kratter, Luke, Mechanic, are all ten times the bitcoiner you are. You are a paid off VC boy.
Get humble and run BIP110.
If you have watched any video from late 2023 onward you will see that all he’s doing is criticising the guy and all other MSTR copies who other influencers shilled the entire bull market.
Own your mistake you loser.
Anyone around 2015-2017, or indeed anyone with two functioning brain cells, can see where this is heading. Perhaps you were busy in highschool back then? Or into PoS or something cool like that? If it does happen, which sadly is starting to look likely, please make sure you don't sell it for BTC. Do Bitcoin a favour and ride your fork to zero like Ver/CSW etc. Good man. Remember , "babies are dying"
Lmao you’re even more retarded that I initially concluded. Bip110 is the small blockers equivalent as far as those two are comparable, but you’re too dumb and deranged to figure this one out, so…
Thank you for helping me understand the personality types evangelizing BIP110.
That’s easy. They’re not the pedos, spammers and scammers.
You're so right. Thanks again!
Care to put your prediction for September into words so I can bookmark it?
Luke's face is what I think a pedo looks like when their face is uncovered by Scooby Doo and Mystery Inc... Listen I don't follow you as closely as I used to Matt... BUT I HAVE NEVER IN MY FUCKIN LIFE EVER SEEN YOU AND MARTY ACT IN A BULLSHIT WAY.... That's all I know from up here in Kanukistan - Doesn't make me right, but I'm ride or die with both of you until you kill me
What do you mean he's not smart, Luke is unbelievably smart. He's also carrying deep emotional scars from relentless bullying as a child for having the magic autism that is the source of his IQ
Apparently Bip110 doesn’t break BitVM.
Yes, technically it may be a mountain out of a mole hill, but the argument isn't about whether the node can handle it, its the content an individual should be expected to store in their home just to validate their own transactions while being a full-fledged member of the network. Saying "you can run a pruned node" if you don't want unencoded CSAM in your home isn't addressing the argument.
"The 257-byte control block limit constrains large Taptrees. Advanced smart contracts like BitVM may need to wait until [BIP110] expiry or use testnet/sidechains." source: bip110.org — though on the same page they also pretend that "All known monetary use cases remain fully functional and unaffected.", which is quite gross.
Btw, let me add that blocking consensus upgrades will also delay any covenant update, that are required for Ark to become viable, as well as to upgrade lightning... Since I assume we all know what "temporary emergency measure" means.
Pretty interesting consequences of a sloppy design... If prevent harmful content on the nodes was the point, cap-sizing OP_RETURN would have been sufficient, but ofc they had to overdo it to retaliate and show everyone who's the bitcoin boss, and now we have this mess instead... Lame. :(
>> "based on speculation of the worst possible outcome"
It's important to remember that this is the level at which changes to bitcoin should be thought through. I saw some snippets of the RHR episode and honestly yes, @ODELL is extremely emotional in his critique. But that aside, most of his points are probably valid. Except the "miners switching after activation" argument.
I mean. Because in that case, there would be consensus to move over - despite the transactions that would be erased. I guess consensus is literally the argument to accept rolling back those txs.
However, the point that his adversarial thinking here is justified is contradictory to core30 crowd, and especially @Jameson Lopp argumentation.
In another node, lopp "prepares" us that Knots crowd might ingest the blockchain with child pornography to prove their point.
Well.... if an attack vector has been introduced to bitcoin, and you helped introduced that attack vector.... then you're probably to blame if that attack vector is actually utilized. You don't really get to decide what the motive of your opponent is if they decide to perform the attack.
This became a longer note than intended, but just a TLDR to end it with:
- Odell is thinking in adversarial terms regarding bip110 which is important and arguing that it wont fix spam anyway
- but not about core30 which from my understanding doesnt fix spam at all
- lopp is being a bitch about introducing an attack vector to bitcoin
- maybe nobody should've merged a change, however small, to bitcoin core, if that change was this controversial
Shouting “coin confiscation” and “chain split/reorganization” is FUD. BIP110 only targets transactions that exploit the protocol turning it into arbitrary non-monetary storage.
In case of a reorganisation it would only reverse transactions that were used exploits to introduce spam.
A bomb sniffing dog is only dangerous to you if you’re carrying a bomb.
You start the post saying that BIP110 has nowhere near consensus, then continue to raise FUD of what could happen if the miners switch to it… so what is it? Is it too weak to do any useful change… or so dangerous that it will break havoc? You cannot have both.
Can you link the exact source? All I found on the website is this disclaimer, that claims complications around BitVM, not that it becomes unviable. Also, it’s absolutely normal to disable upgrade hooks for other soft forks while this one gets adopted. Not to mention any soft forks will require months or years of discussion and signalling before it has any chance of going live. It’s common engineering logic - don’t start building extensions around your house while its foundations are shaky.
I gave you my source. Also, I think you misunderstood how it works: it will prevent any consensus upgrade for the time it is active... And we all know how long emergency, temporary measures can last. Though in by view, "temporary" measures on something like Bitcoin make no sense start with. Either it's good and we keep it, either it's not and it never touches consensus. 🤔
"Acceptable short-term tradeoffs" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that FAQ. Temporarily breaking smart contracts and disabling upgrade hooks to filter data you don't like. Name one temporary restriction on a permissionless system that actually stayed temporary.
I don’t understand your framing of “emergency temporary measures.” That logic applies to centralized systems where a small group can extend powers at will. This isn’t that. It’s a soft fork with a built-in expiry at a specific block height. It self-expires. Extending it would require a new round of consensus. And if it’s not working as intended or if meaningful monetary use cases emerge over the next 18 months - I don’t see how it would get that consensus.
BitVM falls into that bucket too. At this stage it’s not a proven monetary use case. It’s closer to an Ethereum-style experimentation sandbox than to something that strengthens Bitcoin’s monetary function. There isn’t a single production-grade deployment demonstrating durable demand - just philosophical whataboutism about what might exist someday.
What puzzles me about the criticism of BIP110 is the inconsistency. If it were permanent, critics would call it reckless and irreversible. When it’s explicitly temporary precisely because it could carry risk - they still call it reckless, now because it might not be permanent. It sounds less like risk analysis and more like reflexive opposition. 🤔
Is it correct to call it an attack?
BIP110 intention is to reduce spam stored on Bitcoin network going forward.
Seems like a fix for unintended use of Bitcoin as storage for arbitrary data.
Is there a good reason to not signal for BIP110 and allow spam on the network to continue?
Fuck off bot
Maybe because different people have different opinions? Btw, this is not "my" framing, this is their framing:
"The one-year deployment allows the community to evaluate the impact while developers work on a longer-term solution. Some restrictions would severely constrain future upgrades if permanent, but are acceptable for a limited time to address the immediate crisis."
In other words, this solution sucks, but we have nothing better right now & there's an urgent matter that needs to be adressed right now. (which urgent matter, we are left to our imaginaion 😂)
Sincerely, I find it painful to discuss this matter with you since you talk like you know, and yet didn't even read the proposal itself. Also, that moving the goalpost each time proven wrong... That's not serious: Bitcoin deserves better considerations & care when it comes to touching the consensus. 🤔
I’ve read the proposal and a bunch of opinions from both sides to form an opinion. For example you quote certain passages from the website/github and interpret them in a way that fits your view. I read them and I interpret them in the opposite direction. The problem BIP110 addresses is severe enough to tighten the rules significantly but not to the point they break the foundations. In fact they reinforce them. Ironically the top down decision making of Core v30 made this fork necessary not just in principle but in practice. If you don’t know what I talk about it maybe you haven’t paid enough attention, or you simply prefer to think it’s a nothingburger. Maybe you should have applied this higher standard towards protocol development to Bitcoin Core too. Did you? Are you running v30? If not, why?
I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opposed to BIP110: sloppy engineering forced through the community with poor arguments.
Btw, core v30 didn't enable posting contiguous harmful content on chain: it was enabled in 2013 by OP_RETURN, that was limitless at the consensus level from the start. And to be clear, the threat was well known all along. There are press articles from 2018/2019 that were FUDing about it during that bear. Anyone who's familiar with bitcoin, like Luke also is, has knew about this for years if not a decade — so why is it suddenly an emergency after all that time? Core 30 sucks and it shouldn't have happen - but it is simply not true that it made that attack viable, and anyone who thinks so is deeply miseducated about how bitcoin works.
All of this is just ego war and people wanting to feel great about themselves. If the priority was to protect bitcoin against this attack, then capping OP_RETURN size would have been enough, and much much more likely to pass. But ofc they had to overdo and turn this into a personal vendetta, and now the chances of fixing the actual important thing by the end or the year are 0.
Good, so we can establish a baseline around v30. I’m aware contiguous data isn’t new. The difference is that it wasn’t a systemic problem until the 2023 inscriptions exploit. Before that, large-scale data stuffing required convoluted workarounds and remained marginal. There wasn’t a real economic split between monetary and non-monetary use at scale.
What changed wasn’t the code alone, but the incentives. Once a market formed around inscriptions and it became culturally normalized, the behavior scaled aggressively. The data reflects that shift. At that point, it stopped being edge-case experimentation and became an industrial use of blockspace for non-monetary payloads.
Uncapping OP_RETURN without first addressing the underlying inscriptions vector only amplified the issue. It expanded one data pathway while leaving the more structurally problematic one untouched.
Are you familiar with the mechanics of the inscriptions exploit? Or how it was handled in 2023? Understanding that context clarifies much of what followed with Core v30 and why BIP100 focuses not only on OP_RETURN but also on alternative data embedding methods. What looks like an overkill is actually trying to patch a leaking bucket with many holes.
Issue #3 - Three Years of Spam
From zero to 36%: a timeline
At first minority hash should make blocks generation slow which then drives the fees up, when mining on BIP-110 chain becomes more profitable, more hashrate migrates to BIP-110 chain which should raise the price and security of that chain.
Wow, that's a great response to his questions.
It shows that you might be compromised in some way. I hope you can get out of the swamp.
I'm familiar with this but either ways the facts are not siding with the idea of an emergency. Most ordinal projects are dead, investors are ruined, and tx fees have been ridiculously low for months.
Besides, you are conflating two very different issues, just like BIP110 is doing. Capping OP_RETURN, which has outlived its utility, to protect nodes from hosting contiguous illegal content is arguably very important. Dealing with witness-embedded spam is secondary and optional. Witnesses can be pruned away, and it's not even sure jpegs are coming back. The were economically viable just because of a hype that is long gone and, would it come back, unsustainable by nature.
As I said, by trying to achieve aggressively everything at once, this BIP is not only harmful to legitimate monetary projects lead by genuine bitcoiners, it's also condemning itself to fail, missing an historic opportunity to fix a long-standing vulnerability.
but why wouldn't the same effect happen to the other chain when hashrate turns minority there?
This data disagrees with your lax view on spam abuse. That’s why I included the link in my previous post. Might be a good idea to give it a read, although you seem convinced your POV is infallible, so there might be no point in trying to convince you more.
Well once again if you cap op_return, that leaves only witness-embedded spam that you can prune away. Your graph actually confirms that it doesn't amount to much, so I'm pretty confused about how you're reading it? The point is, we could have gotten rid of that op_return part with a simple, consensual fix but instead they wanted to push it too far to prove something, and what'll we get is no fix at all because this thing is crappy and won't activate.
Because that chain would be wiped out because if BIP-110 chain accumulates more proof-of-work, legacy chain would suffer deep reorg and see all its blocks orphaned. Its an one way street.
Agreed that this is not ideal and its a risk on bitcoin stability (assuming the BIP-110 fork is initially a minority chain), but in your opinion, what should we do about UTXO bloat (which is a risk on decentralization) ?
You got less than nothing here; just YOUR OWN FINGERS in too many pies.
#bitcoin
#bitcoin
View quoted note →
A change to the consensus rules of bitcoin. The rules that say whether a transaction is valid and can be added to a block.
Or was that not your question? Any sarcasm here went straight over my head 🚸
Good grief. Have you listened to any of his videos over the past years? It seems not.
Primary consensus rules (in plain English)
- Bitcoin Controlled Supply Rule - Total supply of Bitcoins is controlled to a fixed number of 20,999,999.9769 Bitcoin.
- Bitcoin Mining Reward Rule - How many Bitcoins are rewarded to the miner who creates a new Bitcoin block from the coinbase.
Bitcoin Proof of Work Rule - The block hash must meet the cryptographic difficulty requirement.
- Each Bitcoin transaction input must have the correct signature of its address owner.
-Each Bitcoin transaction input can only be used once in the Bitcoin block.
- Each Bitcoin transaction must be in the correct data format.
- Each Bitcoin block must be in the correct data format.
- Each Bitcoin block must contain the hash of the previous block in the blockchain.
I am being pedantic but, my point was that nothing was "changed" persay. BIP 110 added rules and did not change the previous consensus rules.
It would be fair to say "Only one side is pushing stricter rules for consensus"
Two brain cells here, and it's still so obvious that you're on the wrong side of history.
Standing up for what is right is embarrassing? Sure, I guess so. What's your point (agenda) though?
Adding a rule is changing the rule set, by most people's meaning of the words. But there is a slight difference. I shall endeavor to be clearer in the future.
But my point stands, one side is trying to rush through a change in the consensus rule set by adding new rules.
My main problem is the rush. That reeks of scammers trying to make people make mistakes by acting emotionally. Also the "temporary" part is just not sound money.
I completely agree about the Flag Day activation, completely unnecessary. If people want the software, then they can run the software. No need to put a timeline on it. Spam is a slow death that builds up.
But I don't see temporary as a negative. It seems like a compromise in an attempt to find a better solution that is less restrictive for innovative usecases.
Ditto it felt OFF the lack in commentary and even deep dive analysis. It felt like avoidance. I’ve been an RHR fan for 4-5 years now. Love it always. Have always Trusted them. But this really dampens that.
I don’t care if it’s prunable or not. It makes running a node harder anyway. If the previous screenshot wasn’t clear, I hope this one is.
I think putting a hard cap on OP_RETURNs would be the single best non-risky thing to do. However, I think bitcoin adoption will cause blocks to be mostly full a few years from now - and the fees to be much higher. So it would only buy some time & avoid harmful content onchain.
That being said the cost of storage keeps getting lower and lower, but bitcoin block size is static, so all things consider it should only get easier to run nodes from now on.
Yes!
Odell id balls deep intæ TradFi.
It just shows that 80% of the bloat nowadays comes from OP_RETURN, as I already explained. You really missed the point on that one.
Btw, just a few years from now, our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption. Do you think it will cause bitcoin to collapse, or to the least to centralize completely? Or, in your view, are non-monetary transactions the only ones that can cause a node to struggle? Because if full blocks are a threat to bitcoin, then mass-adoption is a threat to bitcoin too, isn't it? Then maybe we should make sure Bitcoin never expands and never growths, just like BIP110 proposes... :)
Bitcoin either maintains censorship resistance, or it doesn’t.
You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Bitcoin cannot be a little bit neutral. It is our money, AND the money of our adversaries.
BIP110 is stupid. Its supporters are very stupid, and they are “here to fix spam.” Think about how big a person’s ego must be in order for them to believe they know how to roll back the chain and pick an alternate outcome based on a censorship campaign they created.
Bitcoin either maintains censorship resistance, or it doesn’t.
You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Bitcoin cannot be a little bit neutral. It is our money, AND the money of our adversaries.
BIP110 is stupid. Its supporters are very stupid, and they are “here to fix spam.” Think about how big a person’s ego must be in order for them to believe they know how to roll back the chain and pick an alternate outcome based on a censorship campaign they created.
Hey thanks for that opinion. Doesn’t really help clarify anything but, why not I suppose.
What is your least liked thing about BIP110?
What aspect of it do you think is the most “stupid”?
I agree that financial transaction will likely price out most of the spam in the long term, and block size are static so no storage issue, but the problem isn't there, the problem is in the UTXO set, which inscription such as ordinal creates multiple non used UTXO which nodes need to keep in RAM (so RAM cost are going significantly higher, so node cost more overtime. So I believe one of the most important things is to remove at the consensus level exploit that permit inscriptions to save UTXO set (which is what BIP-110 is mostly doing) now is BIP-110 the good approach, maybe not but at least its working in the good direction.
Let me spoon feed it.
BIP110 undermines Bitcoin’s neutrality and risks a contentious chain split, in exchange for only modest relief from “spam.”
More precisely…
It turns Bitcoin from a neutral protocol into a curated ledger. Once consensus rules start classifying some valid transactions as “spam” and banning them, you’ve crossed from “any valid script is allowed” to “only socially approved uses are allowed,” which is fundamentally anti‑Bitcoin, and critically stupid.
It weakens censorship resistance. If node software encodes policy views about which data types are acceptable, this opens the door to future content‑based restrictions driven by politics, regulation, and powerful actors.
It introduces material chain‑split risk for a non‑critical reason. Because BIP‑110 tightens consensus rules that a minority of nodes enforce, blocks that include now‑forbidden data could be accepted by old nodes and rejected by upgraded ones, causing a minority fork over an aesthetic/ideological preference, not a security reason. In fact it creates greater external security risks I’ve already highlighted above.
It sets a precedent that “content moderation at the consensus layer” is acceptable. And thus, it attacks “Bitcoin is hard money” and the “blockchain as immutable.” That’s why it gets a hard ‘fuck off!’
Furthermore, reviewing transaction types in consensus is far more dangerous than the spam itself, because it normalizes rule changes justified by subjective judgments about what counts as legitimate use.
All of these fold into one overarching takeaway: that BIP110 is stupid, and those pushing it are very stupid.
“Content moderation“
Bitcoin is money. It’s not a fucking social network for people to post their retard memes.
I don’t agree with the hostile way they’re trying to push BIP110 but I also don’t disagree that bitcoin is money and should remain so.
If you wanna post garbage data, that is non-monetary go to another chain or create a second layer solution.
No it’s aimed at reducing the weight added to the chain. It doesn’t limit utxo, if anything it encourages the breaking of larger transactions into several smaller ones which each add utxo overhead. So every spam incident contributes more to utxo bloat.
Also by reducing the demand for block space even further by removing the large transactions you make it possible to stuff in many more utxos more quickly. An adversarial force could theoretically utxo spam the chain in 5-6 months to the tune of 200 million dollars and make running a basic node at home extremely challenging. While this could be attempted now the prescence of spam bids the cost up 10x and increases the time it would take by a large amount.
Do you think the decentralization would be helped or hurt by losing all the pleb nodes 6 months post activation?
What are you saying? You’re trying to get technical but you start off with reducing added weight? Wtf is weight? It limits op return to 84 bytes and limits transaction outputs to 34 bytes.
Weight as in the size of the chain on a nodes disk drive as opposed to the amount a node must hold in ram to make sure it can stay synced. Adding more ram to a node is not only more costly but may not be possible, so utxo bloat is far more worrisome than the bloat of the chain. Op return is chain bloat, and can be pruned utxo bloat we are stuck with forever.
wow
How does 110 cause UTXO bloat? I’m reading the specifics and I do not see it.
One assumes that the spam it can’t stop will be broken into several smaller pieces. Each piece is an additional utxo. It also leaves the chain more vulnerable to an utxo spam attack since it lowers the cost and raises the available block space that can be used for utxo spam,
I haven’t missed anything. The graphic just shows that:
a) when you have two buckets, spammers will abuse both.
b) if you close one, they’ll switch to the other, so you need to close both.
c) fees can’t outprice spam, bc there’s infinite demand for free data storage
> our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption
Good, that’s the whole point of the debate: save the 36% space used by spam to accommodate more financial transactions. In this regard BIP110 is a de facto scaling solution.
Such a shame to see you lose it so badly. Kratter has one up on you with his eyes closed. DYOR
Not if both buckets are already full... Also it's not free if there's a fee 🤔.
Anyway, I don't need to be convinced that spam is a bad thing. My point was that preventing contiguous harmful content onchain should be the priority for obvious reasons. But I think I already went over my point extensively so probably we should stop here?
Oh ok I get your point now... Especially considering the price of RAM, agreed. Well, that would be an heavy hit in the nuts of ordinals for sure. Now, taproot assets creates the exact same type of UTXO fragmentation, and is it perfectly BIP110-compatible.
In any case, I think the previous wave is kind or dead, and BIP110 won't clean up the existing clutter... So the question is, will there be a new wave or not? And unfortunately the tools exist that would allow for one regardless of BIP110, so maybe there is a need for a different solution that specifically addresses low-value UTXO. (there is already an anti-dust policy that could be updated to higher values for example)
Agreed
My argument is not in favor of “spam” and in fact I think that shit is dumb. But introducing censorship is far far worse.
Clearly, the genesis block is proof that bitcoin has ALWAYS been more than just money.
Why can't fees out price spam.. Has anyone done the numbers on this? Do minimal fees eliminate more than 95% of the spam?
Some thoughts from another post:
Should we be fixing a problem before it has arrived? How can we accurately define the problem if it isn't here yet? (high on chain fees) are their consequences to fixing problems that currently don't exist?
Is it ever possible to define "honest party"?
"so our collective goal is to keep transactions off chain as much as possible"...
Aren't high fees the only thing to incentivise this, the literal pricing mechanism and tampering with the pricing signals gets us into some serious trouble? Look to any of the unlimited historical examples.
Would you agree it might be possible to remove too many transactions off chain? What would the result look like if so....
If you look at Bitcoin alone you might think it is dying, similar to an old tree being overtapped, transactions representing its the flow of sap, and spam representing the buildup of moss or fungi.
On chain fees are a measure of how much off-chain transactions could take place before damaging the underlying chain. If we see 'subjective' spam appearing on chain, maybe we overtapped the tree... maybe we're killing it. Instead of manually removing the moss or fungi build up with bip110 we should on chain some transactions and aggressively discouraging bitcoin derivatives socially.
1 solving problems before they arrive.
2 creates new problems, spam.
3 solve for new problem, setting precedent by defining spam externally. Instead of using pricing incentives the only real spam filter
Looks a lot like the beginning of a negative feedback loop or governmental growth.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by "good intentions"."
I agree with every one of your points but it is the consequences I am afraid of. As we're all aware we can't plant another tree.
View quoted note →
Honnestly I think it's hard to generalize the answer, because the non-monetary market oscillates between two states: hyped or dormant.
Hyped markets, such as during the inscription craze, can actually outprice monetary usage & that's precisely what caused all the resentment against these use cases - they are also incredibly hungry in block space and significantly deter scaling efforts, on a system that is already low throughput. Luckily, this state isn't sustainable - it's a bubble - but it's definitely a nuisance.
Dormant markets can definitely be outpriced, though the UTXO clutter and block burden from the past doesn't go anywhere, right? What's happening right now is that, because onchain activity is so low, miners will fill the blocks with whatever garbage at whatever price - which is always better than 0. In other words, for miners, there's always an incentive to fill the blocks no matter what. This is why I think we entered an era of forever-full blocks, because miners can now marginally stimulate markets that will buy the stranded block space for storage or meme.
This whole thing gives the statistical illusion that spam has been able to constantly occupy a significant portion of our blocks, and that it will be able to keep doing so; But that's conflating two different states of the market. In the first state, it was a real nuisance because it was outpricing bitcoin users, clogging the throughput. In the second, current state, it's not outpricing anyone, it's just that bitcoin is not being used at full capacity. Arguably, the spam market is now so weak that we could easily outprice it if more people were to use bitcoin - it's not clogging the throughput anymore, but it is definitely filling the blocks, adding unecessary weight to the blockchain.
My point in an earlier note was that, whether or not you manage to defeat that spam, it won't take long before the block fills again durably because of mass adoption. Either way, forever-full block is a state of things we'll have to adapt to. Now, if we could dodge another spam hype or two, that would definitely be a great thing — but doing so through a BIP that hurts bitcoin fundamentals & legitimate projects is definitely a bad trade.
Good engineering requires to be level-headed, patient, focused, and be willing to look at the problem from as many angles as possible in orders to discover the best trade-offs. Only the highest quality solutions should be allowed to make their way into bitcoin consensus. There's a reason why most proposal fails, and it's a very healthy state of things. :)
Reversing data carrier size change down to 83-250 bytes is still an option
You mean the v30 versions they pulled due to wallet deletion bugs?
I'm going to do a spaces on twitter later. When are you free
Pathetic. How about doing real debate instead of spreading BS?
Thanks much for an understandable, sensible, non-emotional explanation. I'd zap you some coin but ran into all kinds of kyc hurdles trying to use primal wallet and others here on nostr - but that's another can o worms.
🤝