Yes, somehow ironic.

I'm extremely anti-spam. I don't believe a soft fork that has consensus is the solution. I believe it will do more harm than good. I have receipts.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sometimes you have to act and not wait, especially in IT security operations. #BIP110

I don't believe the "good" outcome is likely. That's why I'm not supporting at this point.

If Good is unlikely it should be not defended? Sad.

What bad can come out of a *temporary* soft fork? Worst case we all look stupid and everything gets to where it was 12 months later.

> I believe it will do more harm than good. I have receipts. Do share them please.

Here’s a book I’d never buy then 🫠

Imagine if you applied that logic to everything else. Such cowardice is how tyranny wins.

Deep reorgs, chain split.

That’s a problem for the miners, not the users.

See here. View quoted note →

Disagree. If a user's transaction gets mined in a non-compliant block, that transaction will be in conflict. Double spending will be possible on the margins.

lol 😂 let me guess… your gonna show us the non compliant transaction that two people on the network use… and pretend that’s a problem fuck off asshole

No, idiot. A perfectly valid transaction could be mined by a non-110-signalling block and then it's in limbo. If it gets mined by the BIP-110 chain, it will be in a totally separate block with separate history, which may have downstream effects. But the BIP-110 side could also get RBF'd, permitting a double-spend. Think things through before posting.

This could easily be avoided by not being stupid. Everyone knows you should refrain from transacting while a split is resolved. These marginal risks are present with any fork. Does this mean we should not upgrade Bitcoin and ossify?

I wasn’t asking about your antispam receipts. I was asking about “bip110 doing more harm than good”. I think you, Giacomo and SuperTestnet are doing more harm than good. And spammers are super thankful to you.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users have no idea BIP110 is even happening. Disruptions to the ability to use Bitcoin as money should be avoided.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users use exchanges and custodial services to move coins. Even if they haven’t heard about BIP100, the custodians have and they have a responsibility to warn their users or outright not permit them to transact in case of a split. The rest of the Bitcoin users who practice self custody most certainly know about BIP110.

> Disruptions to the ability to use Bitcoin as money should be avoided One can make the case spammers have significantly disrupted the ability to use Bitcoin as money for the past 3.5 years. Maybe send your grievances to them instead?

Your response tacitly acknowledges that you think there should be no more forks / updates / fixes, and that bitcoin should ossify. Arbitrary data has definitely disrupted the usage of bitcoin as money over the last 3 years. Have you tried syncing a node recently on an older but still fairly capable laptop. Syncs very fast until about 70%, then completely hits a wall, with an estimated time to finish of over a year. This forced me to spend $800 on a more powerful machine. I suspect that most people will turn away from that and therefore a lesser ratio of people using bitcoin will run nodes. This does not just disrupt bitcoin as money, but also disrupts bitcoin as a decentralised network.

Is he lying about something?

Took me four days to sync on my older laptop. That’s a serious problem considering the chain is expanding 2-3 GB a week with bloat.

I’m going to assume he’s being honest, but he’s missing the bigger picture, which is, clearly people are pointing out that IBD greatly slows when it gets to about 2023. His argument seems to be it “it was fine for me so it’s not a problem”. From my point of view I know that the 2 times I attempted to IBD on my older laptop, the first took about a month and the second time I had to give up on, because it completely stalled, (had to resync cause I accidentally corrupted the data). It’s pretty clear to me that from my experience and from hearing other people’s experiences that IBD on older or less powerful machines is an issue especially for node adoption. Maybe other factors such as internet bandwidth and proximity to the nodes bootstrapping yours has a great effect on IBD. However on the more powerful machine I bought, with the same internet bandwidth and proximity other nodes it took just over 2 days. This is obviously greatly reduced from 1 month, suggesting in my case at least, hardware was the greater bottle neck.

It’s because of the assumevalid 0. Most historical signatures are skipped. So it looks like he’s right.

Do you think a new bitcoin user will know how or why he should do this?

Apparently the IBD has been improved significantly in recent Core releases. Not just assumevalid.

Perhaps it could be standardized in a safe way.

Maybe but I’m sure it will come with its own set of tradeoffs.