Replies (56)
We’re giving this dude too much power
As for me I was on the fence but then have been enchanted by the cool things that artists like MDV are doing with inscriptions... Like Blockforge, a full metaverse living on the Bitcoin blockchain.
It's precisely the fact that these projects *must* work within the harsh constraints of the Bitcoin blockchain that is precisely what imparts a lot of artistic merit, IMHO. Blockforge for instance is a procedurally generated world that is derived from (a) a "world seed" and (b) a ~800kB HTML file, which are the largest actual assets that sit on the blockchain. Everything else is produced client-side.
Understand.
Inscriptions aren’t my thing but I get that some like yourself are into them. And I agree that doing things within the blocksize limit is interesting and important.
Because Core v30 is an attack on btc to centralize mining and rule governance. Mechanic's interview on "what bitcoin did" podcast is the full case
I'd go back to gold and fiat without POW.
Nodes** not mining. Multitasking fail
This is always something Node runners can do. This isn't some new thing. If the miners go rogue and ONLY write empty blocks because the government threatens their arrest. The nodes can change the PoW algo so that it is no longer a centralized attack vector.
Also, this isn't some imposed rule. This would have to be a majority of nodes or else the miners would just route transactions around the network minority.
Luke here is talking about a very extreme example because all of the miners would have to be Pro-Spam. (Unlikely)
Wut? People are running open source software. He has no more power than any Bitcoin Core contributor or dev.
Inscriptions only exist because datacarrier definition was changed to only apply to outputs. This is not a standard Bitcoin behavior.
If mining is truly centralized Bitcoin must adapt (by changing the hashing algo) or die. Centralized Bitcoin mining is a central bank with extra steps.
No, he didn't even write the BIP, he just agrees with it. Also, the BIP doesn't have a governance prescription. Just limits some taproot OP_codes, and OP_RETURN size.
I encourage people to actually read the proposal and not just get the info second hand.
I guess it would be possible but it would be odd given how outspoken he has been just to create a pseudonym to write a BIP? Not sure I see the logic.
It's more about mining pool structure and block template construction and propagation. But, sparing you a deep in the weeds point, it takes more than that. I have more hope for StratumV2 and DATUM adoption than new pools or a restructuring of percentage of market share.
Also fair 😂
This guy have some fringe beliefs, so him wanting to change proof-of-work doesn’t surprise me.
There's a lot of money to be made in pumping a new shitcoin.
I get the sense that this is the case. The main thing I wanted to learn is what we’d be changing the PoW algorithm to, and I still haven’t gotten that answer either here or on X. I can’t imagine not knowing what such a proposed change would look like beforehand.
Not in this case, there simply isn't a big overlap between BTC wealthy folks and Bitcoin Puritans.
There doesn't need to be. Assuming a market develops, BIP110 coins would be dirt cheap, ready to pump with Puritan marketing. It may not even be the same people doing it.
You'll never understand Luke Logic.
Though it helps immensely if you append "on my node" to any wacky statement he makes regarding Bitcoin governance.
They would be dirt cheap but there's no way to extract value without liquidity.
And I don't see exchanges bothering to add support for a low liquidity fork that lacks replay protection.
This vid is a good explainer of your question. To me as a BIP110 supporter a hard fork PoW change is a non-starter. At the same time if BIP-110 fails I firmly believe Bitcoin as we know it is over and it’s probably not coming back. You can’t have perfect money if your blocks are 40% non-monetary junk that competes with the monetary usecase. Bitcoin then becomes like silver is to gold and it will be demonetised in not too long.
Imho, if #Bip110 fails, there will be a hard fork to the original rule-set. And maybe that’s a good thing. #Bitcoin will go underground again a bit more for a while, used as intended.
I’m not staying for that one.
Why not?
Thanks. I’ve had someone share that with me. I don’t agree with the framing at all and I find the argument disingenuous.
Which part do you find disingenuous?
Because it will not succeed to find overwhelming support, will lose all network effects and become a dead in the water altcoin like all previous hard forks of bitcoin.
If BIP-110 fails it means it came too late and the psyop capture was successful. At this point we should accept we’ve lost Bitcoin. To be honest, I don’t think we’ll come to this. BIP-110 is on track and we hold the winning cards imo.
Yes, I also think #bip110 will succeed. Re the hard fork, it would still be the only scarce, but also immutable money in the universe. And the long term trend is always toward the hardest money. But again, agree, 🤞won’t come to this.
Scarcity is not the best feature of Bitcoin. It’s its usefulness as money which is downstream from its network effects as a MoE. This is what gives it any value. A fresh fork of the current Bitcoin despite its flaws and inevitable demise as both SoV and MoE will be practically worthless. It’s like returning to Bitcoin from 2010, before Lazlo purchased the first pizza. You’ll be better off holding gold or Monero.
What dumb founds me about the whole Core vs Knots/BIP-110 are:
1. What is going to prevent Knots from suffering the same fate as Core?
2. If Knots/BIP-110 is the way forward? There should be more information on guiding people how to make the switch over rather than debating the differences.
The bottom line is: Is any form of a monetary system safe when human hands are involved? So far it appears NOT.
The golden rule is, just don’t change it.
The maintainers are the biggest threat, just pacify them. Like you say, take the humans out.
Any change to the ruleset is an attack on #bitcoin. And it’s not an app, so the whole thing on security upgrades is a red herring. It’s a ruleset visible to all. No changes required.
V25 is maybe the optimal. If everyone runs that or below, everything’s fine.
#Bip110 is necessary to undo the malware. After that, just leave the code alone.
As a shitcoin magazine cuck do you agree that Naka is scam and David Bailey is a scammer? Let me gues, you don't agree. See, easy. Corruption unveils the worst from people.
Sondra you’re just gaslighting….
You see value in shitcoins and scams, so lets see ...
BitcoinIsFuture
The good news are Good.
Citrea running a shitcoin on top of Bitcoin is an attack against Bitcoin Freedom Money.
Compromised and corrupted Core facilitating Citrea is an attack against Bitcoin Freedom Money.
Shitcoiners and bad actors like Jameson SLopp (investor in Citrea along Peter Thiel) that manipulate and brainwash Coretards attacks Bitcoin Freedom Money.
Influencers that are influenced by Citrea and brainwash Coretards attack Bitcoin Freedom Money.
But it seems that Bitcoin's immune system is working 🧡
View quoted note →
You didn't answer the question. But this is an answer as well.
Do you think Naka is a scam and David Bailey is a scammer?
You are related to shitcoin magazine so I don't expect you to be honest about Bailey being a scammer.
This automatically makes you numb about scams on Bitcoin, about spam on Bitcoin, about corruption in Core etc.
That is what is has to do. Also you are not genuinely interested in BIP 110, you try to attack it.
: ), see, deflecting but not answering this simple easy question
The good news is that the market knows that David Bailey, Naka and shitconiers like Citrea are scammers.
Power may be the wrong word. Too much trust
That's why I am helping with the Bitcoin Commons, man. Thebitcoincommons.org
A bitcoin spec and a way to spread out the implementations without the fear of being out of consensus.
Same. I’d sell everything and would disconnect my node. Not going to support free data storage and the possibility of illicit trash being stored on BTC. I went all in on bitcoin because it was decentralized, and secure… if BIP110 fails then so does my thesis of it as money.
Not going to happen though. Rdts is growing very fast and scammers are getting scared. The loud noise from Core is just more evidence that they are losing control and it’s decentralizing at the node client level.
1- knots is supporting Bitcoin as money. That’s the biggest difference. Andy back even states in interviews that bitcoin is a “store of value” and an asset. He never uses it as a medium of exchange and doesn’t ever mention it being one.
The ethos of Knots is to reserve Bitcoin as peer to peer cash like Satoshi intended. Plus it was never funded through cutouts by Epstein… unlike Core. And for those who dislike Luke… thats a non issue, because the BIP wasn’t written by Luke it was by Dathan Ohm and is much more conservative than Luke’s approach.
2-
@Matthew Kratter has been making free educational videos for months and there’s a detailed website https:// www.bip110.org. Plus https:// thebitcoinportal.com has an extensive overview of the health of the network, plenty of reading and even monitoring of the BIP activation levels and probabilities as we move forward.
And lastly… this is how decentralization works. You can’t just sit back and hope it remains secure. You need node runners and devs who actually care about the network to secure it. That doesn’t happen without humans who care about it as money. You need people who will lose everything if it gets centralized because they hold all their value in it. Those people are running knots and bip110. Core devs literally get paid in fiat and some aren’t even bitcoiners!
He just mentioned that as a defense of the bip failed. And he said pow change… not removing it.
It’s irrelevant though. Dathan Ohm wrote the bip. Luke doesn’t even agree with some of the proposal lol. Y’all are just desperate as hell to claim BIP110 is a shitcoin… it’s a TEMPORARY SOFTFORK. Nothing changes other than reverting BTC back to what it was before Core made the changes.
Luke wanted the soft fork to activate in February and to be much lower of an activation rate lol
It wasn’t his proposal. You can be a conspiracy theorist if you want but bring some evidence, instead of regurgitating baseless lies.
lol a scammer like you not being able to comprehend logic is expected.
Hi Frank - it’s good that you’re open to understanding the BIP-110 perspective. Hodlonaut recently published a great series of well researched articles about the dangers we face from the existing highly centralized funding for Core developers and how Core allowed SPAM to increase. I think centrists like me just want Bitcoin to go back to being money and not supporting the unnecessary SPAM that has crept in over the past few years because Core has refused to mitigate it (and in some cases made spamming easier). BIP-110 is aiming to enforce SPAM mitigation via a consensus change. If successful, BIP-110 would mean that Libre Relay and MARA Slipstream would no longer be able to bypass the rules designed to prevent SPAM. We then buy some time to more thoroughly organize how to mitigate SPAM more effectively for the long-term and ensure it doesn’t impact any likely financial use-cases. There’s a lot of FUD and nasty ad-hominem attacks out there and Luke does have some views that centrists like me don’t agree with. Unfortunately, Core remains unwilling to mitigate SPAM (and Libre Relay/Slipstream would route past nodes even if Core did start mitigating SPAM) so Knots and BIP-110 are the only viable path to mitigate SPAM at the moment. I can’t imagine many BIP-110 supporters agreeing to remove PoW because it would weaken the monetary use cases they are passionate about - they just wouldn’t upgrade to that change (and that tweet is likely about a willingness to consider a change to PoW rather than removing PoW).
Are you gonna answer?
Let's put that here
You are either a brainwashed retard or a bad actor.
Bitcoin today is the result of a few hardforks
1. You are, by supporting a diverse ecosystem of multiple node implementations and not leaving Knots as the only option.
Then don't. Do things yourself instead of complaining when others do what's needed
That’s beside the point and the situation today is quite different. A hard fork of today’s bitcoin will result in an irrelevant altcoin shed of all its network effects, MoE adoption and most of the network security. It will be like returning to Bitcoin in 2010 but without any future prospects.
The fork will start with the same network. And it’ll grow because it’s the hardest money. Imho.
attention?
Good to know. Thanks for the references. Running 27.1 and don't plan on upgrading anytime soon.
