Replies (102)
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.
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
That would be funny.
I'm looking forward to the free sats
the "unhappy side" achieved nothing.. the rest of us just kept going
Not before node runners are out of hardware to support the network.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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).
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.
> Now I don't agree with the way they are handling the b110 thingy.
Care to elaborate?
awww thanks publius! yes 83 bytes is what I am after
Always support the best developments... For the betterment of the masses.. 🧡🧡🧡
Come on Odell, give a pass on this extreme autism case 🤪
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..
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.
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.
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.
I'm fx Eva david from (U.S.A)Francisco I do work with evidence to be precisely the senior Accountant manager at banking stock marketing tragedy analysis, there is an ongoing project our company is currently working on which is benefiting to human nature world wide.
want to benefit ?. text via link below.
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
Telegram
FX_EVA_DAVID
11+ Years stocks&crypto Trading Guru i Help investors & Traders Earn💰
