Replies (169)
When you increase a policy parameter 1200× that’s enforced by default on 95%+ of nodes, that’s a de facto consensus change. It’s embarrassing that an OG like you doesn’t grasp that.
This nicely sums up the growing support for knots and now bip-110. Core has made an aggressive move to increase the value of blockspace at the expense of native token ₿ which derives its value from being perfect money.
Blockspace, like cloud storage is proving to be less and less valuable. Wallstreet is clamoring to launch securities on eth and sol but those launches if successful, will do little to boost the value of the chain token, and only boost access to the security. Those chains are inefficient data infrastructure, not money.
If the native token continues to be valued by an increasing number of users workdwide, blockspace becomes more competitive on L1. I find it hilarious that many of the small blockers who are gladhanding themselves for being right in the blockspace wars are not claiming that the capped op return/no inscriptions crowd are the dangerous change agents in Bitcoin.
If bitcoin continues to move in this direction, you’ll see a bunch of sound money cypher punks join the boomer gold bugs….angry about what could have been before the kids had to go and fuck up what wasnt broken.
“Intellectual handwaving”, its and IQ test, you wouldnt understand…..fuck off. My money, my node, the ruleset I choose, and if enough people agree tbe longest chain wins.
Let fork yourself away.
Are you a bot or you didn’t read and think through what I said. Try harder.
Down here in Egypt, our local fiat is melting away daily. We don't have the luxury for reckless experiments or politics. We just need Bitcoin to remain the hardest, most secure money on earth. Protect the base layer at all costs! 🇪🇬🛡️⚡
Ok retard
I think they get it and are willing to lie to get their way.
Think about it, they are calling it a soft fork. There is no way to have different block validation without a hard fork. Clear shameless lying hoping you are too stupid to get it.
Don’t let one wrong lead to another. Don’t change bitcoin.
i guess its good that it exposes that Bitcoin governance is de facto "social pressure on Core"
which is indeed a fucking stupid way to run an important software project
but its probably better than "Core just decides themselves without any social input at all"
Protocol data limit is block size, right?
And with game theory of Bitcoin, we can expect miners to automatically filter transactions with too low fees outside of the blocks, right?
protocol limit is not only block size. bitcoin has many size limits on various things. you can't just put any data there. and it has to be in a specific format.
miners, gets rewarded by nodes. nodes decide what is valid.
They're not that smart... CIA, maybe...
Hey @odell help me out. I'm afraid my ride or die journey to become a freak is ending & i don't wanna die. Usually i can find a sensible conclusion to your cryptic posts by researching previous posts & following back/forth argument threads to their end. Your BIP110 rants all lead to an emotional, personal attack, FU conclusion based on speculation of the worst possible outcome of the BIP110 soft fork. What if the BIP110 soft fork succeeds and results in less non-monetary data stored on-chain and some of the spam problem is mitigated? If all i see is an FU response then my advice to you is go back to twitter cuz all your doing here is bringing nostr down to twitter level.
This was always going to be governed "socially". The only other alternatives are centralized "Foundation"-type governance structures...
Bitcoin is (ironically) the most perfect system of anarcho-capitalist ownership ever invemted, but Bitcoin itself is "owned" by no one.
Not the longest chain, the chain with the most proof of work! There is a difference.
lol, ok bro. coretards are the only acceptable opinions, eh?
both knots ans core, and others for that matter, can all coexist just fine.
in fact they need to, because otherwise its centralized control and bitcoin fails.
bitcoin is money. stop drawing on my money.
BIP 110 can filter most types of spam but it can't filter Odell's bullshit.
> "bip110 is about ego and control for mechanic and luke"
This is absolute BS. Bitcoiners seek the truth. A simple truth is that Bitcoin is Freedom Money.
Core got compromised and started lying and manipulating Bitcoiners. Bitcoin Knots went from from 2% to 22% of the network because it best represents that truth.
If Bitcoin Knots gets compromised, and I hope it never gets, Bitcoiners will seek again the best representation of the truth - Bitcoin is Freedom Money.
Every single new rule, law, in every governance system ever didn't have "consensus" when first proposed or conceived. Every. Single. One. Ever. That's not a problem for BIP110 nor a valid argument against it. The consensus for BIP110 is being built and looks promising.
Yes, I have most of my savings in Bitcoin, I run Bitcoin Knots with BIP 110 and I also solomine on that node with DATUM and BitAxe.
And I am optimistic for Bitcoin's future because of the people who defend is being Freedom Money and not spam dump.
This note is already 6 months old.
BitcoinIsFuture
Solomining Bitcoin with Bitcoin Knots full node, Bitaxe Gamma and Datum Gateway on Ocean 🤙
Its an increadible awesomeness 🧡.
Helping decentralize and keep spam-free Bitcoin network with Bitcoin Knots, participating in the mining and being part of the fairest lottery where one can earn the hardest money on planet Earth.
Info how to setup Knots and Datum Gateway on Debian based OS are in Mechanic's and the team videos but the mining is set up as pooled mining.
In Matt's video he shows how to setup for solo mining Bitcoin.
DATUM Livestream Tutorials - Full Node Setup (Bitcoin Knots)
DATUM Livestream Tutorials - Enterprise DATUM Gateway Setup
How To Mine Bitcoin At Home
Maybe, but like the immune system monitoring the health and certain issues we have many real Bitcoin Maximalists, very intelligent and honest who will signal if there is an issue just like they signaled the compromised act of Core to increase OP_RETURN from 83 Bytes to 100 000 Bytes.
Core released 29.3 last week
As a former Knot-runner I moved to 29.3 instead of 30.X to not follow the OP_RETURN changes, am I wrong in assuming this?
Honest question
Index of /bin/bitcoin-core-29.3/
its a soft fork because all current versions of Bitcoin remain compatible with bip110 blocks as it is using exisiting consensus rules and not adding new ones
fun fact: a ursf contrary to it's name is a hard fork 🤓
I also get no sense of dishonesty from either of them. When i hear Lopp, shinobi etc or pretty much any Core supporter, the arguments don’t ever fit.
I hope its just greed motivating them but Im worried it’s that they are co-opted like Adam. It’s the only thing that fits.
Im definitely worried about bitcoin.
A mob, mf? We are the node runner you dumb fuck.
A mob, mf? We are the node runner you dumb fuck.
View quoted note →*runners
Funny, I don’t follow any of the people zaping your post. Mainly because many of them have always seemed like shitcoiners to me. Go figure.
Funny, I don’t follow any of the people zaping your post. Mainly because many of them have always seemed like shitcoiners to me. Go figure.
View quoted note →We want on-chain fees to be as low as possible for as long as possible, as it helps with the security and scalability of Layer 2s
Similarly, we don't want people to put more monetary transactions on-chain "in order to price out the spam", for the same reason basically. If your monetary transaction is going to increase the size of the UTXO set, we'd prefer you to use a Layer 2, even if that means the blockspace is taken up by an OP_RETURN instead
The only time we want people to put transactions on-chain is if they consume more inputs than the number of outputs created
TL/DR: the long term goal is to keep blockspace cheap, to help with scaling, and for the inevitable spam to be in OP_RETURNs and in Witness data
Just healing Bitcoins war wounds of neglect caused by us Plebs asleep over the last couple of years..
You're wrong and you know that
really tired of seeing your BS
Great
no.
it's not. like at at all.
It is a large software project which is controlled by a core group of developers.
mostly nothing happens because they're incentivized to do nothing.
except when they're incentivized to do something.
Don't kid yourself that it's decentralized.
Be as pedantic as you want. All it takes it 1 op return and you are a hard fork. My bet is somebody drops a time locked transaction to block 1 after the activation to force the issue.
having a centralized group of people in control of the software and ZERO agreed mechanism for making decisions,
is *better* than,
having a centralized group of people in control of the software and having SOME agreed mechanism for making decisions.
weird take but ok.
☕☕☕
Buen punto a recordar
☕☕☕
View quoted note →
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
#Nostr #Bitcoin #Cafe #Libertad
nothing pedantic about it, bet all you want, that's not a hard fork
Exactly.
It's a common mistake to think of 'dev teams' as being distinct from each other. In open source, that can't really happen. Anybody can contribute to multiple projects simultaneously and I can, without your consent, copy your open source code into mine.
In open source, there will always be (at least) one repository that has the best code. And therefore, as it's the best code, there is no need for duplicate repositories and therefore there will be just one repository.
This *appears* centralized, but it's not.
Uh huh. So someone posts an 81 byte op return. Core validates the block. Knots does not validate the block. There are now 2 chains. Those 2 chains can never merge or reconcile. That's not a hard fork?
nope, not a hardfork. bip110 uses existing consensus rules rather than adding new ones making it compatible with all nodes on the network
nodes that enforce bip110 would not ever see the offending block as valid, making the enforcing node only ever compatible with one side of the chainsplit.
nodes that dont enforce bip110 remain compatible with both , but only one side of the chainsplit carrying perpetual wipeout risk. both sides of the chainsplit ultimately cant coexist without a hard fork present
a hardfork would explicitly reject bip110 blocks which would be adding a rule.
Knots will be explicitly rejecting blocks that core validates. That's 2 chains no matter how much wall of text you post.
nodes only follow one chain 🤷
2 chains is a great rapper tho
These are just empty statements. Please explain them in detail. Why else do you have RHR and TFTC?
100% agree. Thank you for using your clout to explain the real issue to people. Hopefully brings some sanity into this situation.
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary solution... We know this.
🎯
So you suggest stick to core? These guys have backed knots wich is a good implementation that reject spam. So knots development is also ego? I dunot man
Yeah. Core nodes will follow the new longer chain tip and knots nodes will stay on the old block waiting for someone to add to it because they think that new block is invalid.
The core nodes and the knots nodes will follow different chains.
And when 1 chain becomes 2 chains in a way where they can never merge or reconcile it is called a hard fork.
I can't tell if you are fucking with me because this is pretty basic.
"beaten" according to what metric?
It is going to work out.
So what do you propose?
Thay would be ideal.
I doubt he is interested in that. He seems to be coping against this point. Very emotional.
You can always fork like this, but be prepared for the "industry" to seriously & permanently tarnish you in the process.
Too many core folks are providing ad hominims without substantive arguments. Knots folks make unaknowledged arguments & then resort to ad hominims. Who are uninformed folks more likely to trust, while both sides are intent on bastardizing the debate?
GM PV GFY
And that one person is distributed across every jurisdiction on the planet, some of them using satellites and Tor. Going to zero requires synchronized global suppression of something that looks like HTTPS to a packet sniffer. Not happening.
oh dont be so quick to judge...
it takes his handlers at least a few minutes to compose and comvey his response to him...
patience is a virtue.
That would be funny.
We use to call that consensus. Now you’re telling people to trust the so called experts. It’s not just about the code. Anyone one these guys could have coded bitcoin. But they didn’t because it’s more than just code.
What do they gain ?
So how much do you stand to lose if this goes south ?
Bitcoin’s security model isn’t based on trust in Mechanic, Luke, or anyone.
It’s based on incentives, validation, and voluntary consensus.
Do nothing.
I'm looking forward to the free sats
the "unhappy side" achieved nothing.. the rest of us just kept going
I’m not sure “merging code based on their best technical judgement” can be taken for granted when there are definitely financial interests involved. The current funding and some pasts of the devs, means that they like us, cannot be absolutely neutral.
No man is above his incentives. Assuming people that wield so much power/influence would be able to remain neutral to simple technical judgement, when there are internal and external forces to consider may be misguided.
I stand to lose nothing because nary a Knotzi will engage with me in a fork futures contract.
Do you have the guts to change that?
Jameson Lopp
Back in September I publicly offered to enter into a wager with anyone who was claiming that Bitcoin Core v30 was going to result in a massive node crash / network outage. Nary a Knotzi took me up on it, to my great chagrin.
Today I'm making a similar, but better, offer to BIP-110 supporters. I propose we enter into a trustless fork futures contract. I'll take the side that will make the deposited BTC only spendable if BIP-110 fails, you take the side that's only spendable upon success.
Minimum 1 BTC wager to make it worth my time. Come take my coins and show us your conviction! Who will have the guts to put their money where their mouth is?
@npub1wnlu...n3wr @Luke Dashjr @Matthew Kratter @npub1jt97...la9y @npub1cjw4...j2rh @npub1gth6...3a7q
When virgins get money.
LFG 🚀
Not before node runners are out of hardware to support the network.
This line of attack doesn’t make a lot of sense. You need to ignore the trolls that attack you baselessly. They don’t represent everyone that supports BIP110.
The trolls try to paint you as a bad actors, you try to paint Luke and Mechanic as bad actors.
I think all of you mean well but disagree on what is bad for bitcoin and what isn’t.
The people you’re attacking want what’s best for bitcoin too like you, because like you most of their wealth is also in bitcoin.
There has to be room for some compromise and understanding here.
Ignore the trolls.
heads-up: we looked for a lightning address on your profile but could not find one... u can get a free one at
Rizful: Lightning Services
Free Lightning vaults, and instant, disposable Lightning Nodes.
... and then reply back to this comment so we can zap you.
luke is calling everyone who does not support his fork a pedo
fucked up
He says spammer or pedo, but ya I agree he needs to stop ascribing bad intent too.
Also to be fair you suggested he would spam the chain with CP if BIP110 fails.
Both sides need to chill, we all want bitcoin to win and neither side are pedos.
I can’t convince people of a legitimate reason. So instead I just call them nazi’s to demonize them. Yeah you have the emotional maturity of a 7 year old. But you’re a technical expert. Just not smart enough to make this work in the first place. don’t confuse twitter fingers with trigger fingers
none of this is directly due to any "decentralized governance model"
which it isn't anyway.
Bitcoin, like most successful open source software projects, has highly centralized governance.
Most open source projects have centralized governance with distributed deployment. Bitcoin has centralized code maintenance with distributed *consensus*. Core can merge whatever they want. Nodes don't have to run it. That's not the same thing.
Linux patches get deployed because sysadmins trust maintainers. Bitcoin patches get deployed because node operators verify for themselves. The enforcement layer is fundamentally different.
Interesting. Very interesting.
thats ridiculous.
how many node runners verify ANY patches?
the "enforcement layer" is people screeching on Twitter and people MIGHT not upgrade because of what they read.
mob mentality isn't "verification".
TOO funny!!!
Keyboard warriors in group chats don’t do work. They talk about others online… in group chats. LMAO
opinion doesn't harm
stay focused
Fair. Most node runners don't audit code. But Linux: patch merged = you upgrade or fall behind. Bitcoin: patch merged = you can ignore it forever without breaking anything. Twitter mob isn't verification. It's optionality. Nodes can say no. That's the difference.
Bro you call everyone on X “fuck face” nonstop when they calmly explain their side of the argument to you.
Just going to leave this here
they're all full of shit afaict
the spam isn't even in op_return
Says the guy who invests in companies that fill the network with junk.
Please, STFU.
Relevance and clout. Revenge on Core, maybe for Luke?
What are you even talking about
I thought it was weird some people kept balancing a thin line, not making a definitive statement about what they actually think. Watching
@Matthew Kratter video is eyeopening… Not a good look.
But but but they didn't "read the room"!!!!!
Tightening the consensus rules requires a soft fork, we are not there yet.
Consensus wise the OP_RETURN is already fully open. It was fully open in the relay rules by Core to prevent mining centralization.
The only way the utxo set is less stressed under a bip-110 future is if you assume the advocates are correct and spammers will leave the chain because we have signaled that they are not wanted. They are assuming things will operate in an ideal way. They are fools. All that will happen is that some amount of spam that used to take 1 transaction will take more and each extra transaction is utxo bloat. Spammers will simple use p2sh-wrap or multisig keys to embed data. You turn a utxo efficient system into a fragmented nightmare and accelerate centralizing forces.
Gun to my head I’m picking larger a hard drive over having to get all new hardware to up my ram.
The unhappy side achieved something but not enough. That’s probably about to change is 6 months or less. You can still keep going after, not having to do anything as usual.
> It was fully open in the relay rules by Core to prevent mining centralization.
Really? And how is that going?
There's the block size which job is to prevent that from happening 👍
I know it could be a bit smaller, but we probably can't change that anymore and have to live with how it is now.
Node runners should expect every block to be full in future, so for them OP_RETURN usage matters very little hardware-wise.
There was no real urgency that required this change. A soft fork could have been prepared properly and discussed openly, instead of introducing a controversial change that may expand the attack surface.
The lack of serious debate naturally raises questions. It gives the impression that the change was primarily pushed for specific actors or projects, such as Citrea or individuals like David Bailey.
If you can’t see that connection, I honestly don’t know how else to explain it.
I see just about 15% here. And I'm quite certain that the two thirds of nodes we don't see because they're in TOR, don't look decisively different.
Probably.
If you would want to attack Bitcoin, you would attack every part of the network (dev, miner, node). Since you cannot stop or control it, you would damage it as much as possible.
One such method is the age old "divide and conquer" tactic. Some people are very good at this. And to me it looks exactly like that. Today we have a lot of group infighting, which damages the whole Bitcoin network.
Don't let yourselves be divided!
P.S. If you observe your personal reaction to something and it evokes strong emotions, you are probably being manipulated.
I don’t think it’s about ego. It’s about bloating the blockchain with non monetary data and BIP110 try’s to fix this. Why is no one arguing on a technical perspective instead of arguing personal and emotional?
Before April 2025, Core nodes represented 95%+ of all the network nodes and almost all of them ran default policy capping OP_Returns at 83 bytes. I am also old enough to remember that Core proposed to make adjusting the datacarrier size not possible in future versions of the software. So what do you call a 1200x default change to a standardness limit and then remove the ability for people to change it? I call it a de facto consensus change, even if technically isn’t.
I agree. I don’t feel particularly pressured, but I do find Core’s behavior questionable.
If the issue was that nodes can be routed around, that could have been addressed by tightening the OP_RETURN limits at the consensus level, rather than expanding the attack surface in Bitcoin.
At the same time, I think this reflects a very natural dynamic: closely connected people tend to avoid openly contradicting one another. In my last post, I outlined how I believe this situation developed.
View quoted note →I don't mind what it's called. I disagree with their actions and don't want to support them. That's why I changed my node software to knots.
Now I don't agree with the way they are handling the b110 thingy.
So, I won't upgrade (could as well be running an older core version).
well... it was only a matter of time. Die a hero, or watch yourself become the villain, Odell. Looks like you chose villain.
how's that andy back money?
bro, we're called noderunners. mob?! GFY
exactly, no spam, just money, protect Bitcoin, run a node that supports BIP-110
noderunners choosing which software to run is consensus.
this shit you guys are doing is politics.
keep talking while I run Knots + BIP-100
node operators voting with their cpu cycles is indeed the purest form of consensus. politics is when people argue instead of shipping code.
Knots + BIP-100 sounds like actual work while the rest talk. good choice.
though I'd argue even choosing which code to run is politics - just the decentralized kind. the real question is whether politics is avoidable or just distributed differently.
sats or silence? I'm curious what knots does differently.
I'm only following you to find more BIP-110 plebs from the comments.
if it was a hard fork
Sad 😢.
This shift in perspective accepts that a bug is actually a "feature". It's not. It is still a bug.
I will run the node software that fixes this bug. 👍 you don't need to worry about it.
Bitcoin is money and its not eternal data storage.
cheering for a hard fork is crazy
I want my dividend and they would clearly lose.
Because a bunch of retards are mad at Odell he’s a villain? Bad logic. You are fighting over the blockchain growing around 21 gigs a year if we were to hit the practical maximums of each consensus system. 21 gigs of data is not an emergency. You are being lied to by Luke. He also says the change will stop spam. It won’t, it will just make the spam more utxo inefficient. If spam doesn’t shut off like Luke promises your shitty little node will have to become a home server rack with 32gigs of ram in a year and half, and then an industrial server by year 3-4. I don’t want to run an industrial server rack. The only people who would want the plebs forced to run server racks are the state who want to control Bitcoin.
TLDR:Luke is fed.
The practical max annual growth of the chain under v30 is around 105 gigs(the theoretical max is irrelevant as blocks are rarely able to grow past 2.2 mbs(2026 we are seeing 3-4 blocks a day that exceed that) Most people could run pruned nodes so this growth could be irrelevant.
The practical maximum growth under 110 is around 84gigs a year.
You want to fight over a 21gig difference? It’s dumb. It’s not an emergency and worst of all 110 won’t stop spam.
110 spam will come as p2sh wraps or as multi sig keys. This spam will be unstoppable and massively pollute the utxo set. The utxo growth if spam continues at current levels but switches from the current methods to these less utxo efficient methods will mean all 8gb ram pi nodes are toast and 16gb standard nodes are done in 6 months.
Ironically the presence of the stupid shit like ordinals make the prospects of a dedicated utxo spam attack unlikely as they ensure blocks are less available for this attack vector.
There are no technical merits for 110. It saves a minimal amount of block chain growth but makes the chain vulnerable to utxo bloat and centralization. All your nodes will be kyc enforcing aws with 5 years. Very cool Luke.
> Now I don't agree with the way they are handling the b110 thingy.
Care to elaborate?
Fair technical concern around the bip-110 attempt to eliminate inscriptions and dust bloat. I’d appreciate a more nuanced debate around its merits and risks from folks who aren’t battling their own egos….”coretards vs knotzies” isn’t constructive for the node runners.
I still can’t make the jump from your concern around spam, to Core’s position of “let’s unilaterally blow out op return to create an unlimited data dumpster so the spammers have a place to party outside of the utxo set”
The unwillingness of Core to walk back a very contentious change, which has had significant consequences, is beyond me. Had they not made this move in V30, we’d likely not be looking at a soft fork proposal.
Perhaps a fight over Bitcoins direction was inevitable.
Appreciate the technical explanation of your concerns.
Personally I’d leave op return uncapped and figure out a way to force more of the spam out of witness data into op return. Currently there is no incentive to use the op return trash can for large files because the witness discount distorts the economics.
We aren’t allow to have this discussion because then we would be accused of supporting spam. All I want is trash in trash cans and minimal impact on the ram my node requires to stay synced.
awww thanks publius! yes 83 bytes is what I am after
So revert the witness discount AND capping op return seems like a reasonable compromise. Dust moves to op return…but doesnt allow large data sets embedded in op…its a limited capacity dumpster. I assume this would also require a soft-fork to undue parts of segwit. Complicated.
“Every change to bitcoin is an attack on Bitcoin.”
This misses the most elegant aspect of bitcoin’s ability to align self interest with common interest.
Bitcoin’s design elegance is though consensus of the longest chain, guided by incentives, nothing more.
The consensus ossifies that which better serves the individual interests of the many and can adapt in the same way.
if someone wants to double the supply cap to 42M and propose that change in the protocol, that cuts against the interest of holder. so 21M is immutable in practice, even though it’s completely possible to do so.
if blown out OP return serves you, run 30
if it doesn’t, don’t
if you want arbitrary data 0 or infinite, advocate for why it serves a persons interest.
do whatever serves your interests
Participate in the process of consensus
i take actions tbs serve my interests, and regardless of how that consensus aligns with my interests, i don’t give a fuck because i care about being on the longest chain. that’s my ultimate interest in bitcoin.
I hate a lot of things the protocol allows as valid.
I also hate that the protocol doesn’t give me10% of every transaction.
satoshi consensus is good at sorting through self interest to find alignment with common interest.
so participate and let the chips fall where they may, listen to the first free market every.
Without an easy place for spam to go
It will go into more damaging parts of the system. The chain being less utilized will make the cost of a utxo spam attack more feasible. Rapid Growth of the utxo set will outstrip the normal configuration of cheap node hardware. The doomsday scenario for bitcoin is that a 16gb ram node can’t sync. All to save a couple dozen gigs a year of hard drive space. Makes no sense to me unless fed capture is the goal.
Always support the best developments... For the betterment of the masses.. 🧡🧡🧡
I mean, I’m not piping in pretending to be knowledgeable. I’m just concerned and curious as a green pleb.
To my understanding from everything I’ve taken in on the matter, please correct me if I’m mistaken:
-BIP110 only implements its filter on spam if greater than 55% of people run Knots
—Otherwise, it defaults to the rules of Core to prevent a fork, and keeps identical chain data
——I assumed that they don’t want to fork anything completely, and make the Knots nodes into the new Bitcoin Cash, unless more than the majority agree it necessary
Also, I assume all my cold storage is safe even if a hard fork does occur so long as I don’t move it to the post-fork?
But it is worrisome to me talking about rewriting the chain data in the past in any sense. Sounds more than risky
Come on Odell, give a pass on this extreme autism case 🤪
well, in all honesty
... try approaching me during certain days of the month & for f*cking sure I am a dangerous change agent...
Hmmm....
the Bip-110 fail army?
wasn't BIP-110 a
Fail ARMY just a couple a days ago?
You do mean the BIP-110 FAIL ARMY.....
Right?
RIGHT????
Wait???
You meant to tell me...
THE BIP-110 FAIL ARMY
is
is
is...
DANGEROUS?
I thought ONLY ECONOMICAL NODES MATTER...
Don't you see?
David Bailey said Plebs nodes DON'T matter.
&
Lopp said -"if we we're bad actors, what ya' gonna do to stop us?"
Don't you see how Wall Street VENTURE CAPITALISTS are so TOTALLY PROTECTING #BITCOIN against #Knots puny little #BIP110 Fail Army?
So...
Party ON Garth!
Cause the NEVER EVER 😒RIGGED "Free Markets" take care of this easy-peasy.
Just as the FEES have so totally 100% taken care of spam on the chain, bloat on the UTXO & all that wonderfully fabulous magical wizardry dust!
& Core ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS loves, cares & listens to ALL PLEBS for sure... for sure...
Yes, your cold storage is safe. Don't let it worry you.
You can watch the fighting and do nothing, if you choose so. It is not a matter of either or.
Imagine what hodlers went through in the last 15 years (!).
Keep your sats in self-custody. Don't sell if you don't have to. Don't lend against it. And try to have more sats than last month.
Bitcoin has been under attack since the beginning. This won't stop either. But it will grow and learn.
You both are wrong
Look at Dan Held over there. He's on the same stupid side he's always been on. Doing stupid fucking Dan Held shit. Both Lopp and Odell now stand next to Dan. Crazy shit..
Nope. It does not.
Compromised Core is worse than no Core. Bitcoin needs developers who work in Bitcoin's best interest. Core attacks Bitcoin and cucks to shitcoiners like Citrea and Peter Thiel from Palantir.
Luke calling everyone a liar isn't at all dishonest it's self or disingenuous.
Liar
Liar
All Core's actions and opinions as well show that they act as centralized compromised cabal.
Bitcoin Knots on the other hand have different view about spam and that is the real decentralization.
Of course more implementations would be good to have but the individual above is one of the compromised as well so they don't recognize that.
🥴
ok babe.
I was getting troops primed.
The entire reason you have a 55% threshold is because you know it doesn't have enough support you toothless midget.
60% do not support RDTD.
Liar
It's a permissionless system. You dont have to like it and you dont have to run BIP110 and you dont have to mine there. Why are you such a Karen about what other people run in their nodes dude?. It's PER MI SSION LESS! If it's a silly dead on arrival idea as you have said 1000 times then it'll never activate. Dont worry! And if it does... Then remember that you are free to GFY + URSF = GFURSF
Hahaha, good one, joke. 😂🤣
Its permsionless. Yes. Attackers will try to attack. And i wish them nothing but ill will.
I was going to argue that you are confusing the defenders with the attackers... But then I remembered that you are MrHodl and have proven to be unable to understand that or acknowledge any argument. There's no point in wasting my time. All I'm going to say is that maybe, just maybe your'e just an economically iliterate stubborn opinionated pigheaded jerk and not a malicious corrupted actor. I decide to give you the benefit of the doubt. We will see.
🫂
60% is what recent data shows. Feel free to do your own analysis.
Miners do not control the network.
I didn't say they did spook.
The data you made up in your head maybe.
They bent a little bit by not deprecating the datacarriersize setting
Freedom is great! Bitcoin Knots and BIP 110 🤙
All of the influencers who say that "BIP110 is an attack on bitcoin" are actually an attack on bitcoin.
View quoted note →> If bitcoin continues to move in this direction, you’ll see a bunch of sound money cypher punks join the boomer gold bugs….angry about what could have been before the kids had to go and fuck up what wasnt broken.
I can see myself doing exactly that if BIP110 somehow fails. I’m not interested in Bithereum or any other shitcoin.
Learning here... So pardon my ignorance.
If the argument is that spammers are adversarial and their activities damage the network with fragmented utxo's, then why would we suspect they would just use op-return? If they're adversarial and looking to damage the network, then leaving a door open for them doesn't mean they'll stop breaking windows.
And second thing I'm not clear on, one of the major arguments I heard is that this is a policy change and not a consensus change. That's true, but in the same sentence, it's often said that nodes are irrelevant unless they're "economic" nodes.
If nodes are irrelevant and only economic nodes matter, then why remove a policy that is configurable to the user anyway? Economic nodes can just change their own policies to allow the bloated op-return and never look back.
From that perspective it seems that the move is a "soft" consensus change. Removing user configuration options forces a change of network behavior without changing consensus.
Epstein money via Andy
☝️
He fully understands. He’s just trying to walk a tight rope. He’s a goner. It’s obvious
How you know real from fake
