Replies (27)
BIP 110 is a power move, not a power grab. It even has temporary in its name ffs
It's just a move. A kinda retarded move.
So then kill Ordinals
True. At this point i I would like 110 to go forward just to see Core shit themselfs.
my biggest fear is of bip110 threat the hashrate or creating a new hardfork splitting the community, bip110 is still a minority;
but the main point I didn't get is why is it temporarly just for one year instead of being permanent or something more persistent? after one year, all that will go back to normal pre-bip110
When did I say it was a power grab
this won't be lasting only for "one year"
given current difficulty and generously assuming hashrate of the whole ocean pool (~3% of current hashrate):
- bip chain will mine 1 block every ~5.5 hours (btw if we take current signalling it is ~1 block per day)
- the "one year" period is measured in blocks: 52416 blocks
- diff adjustments will happen every 2016 blocks = ~466 days (for first adjustment and it will require multiple adjustments to achieve 10 minutes block interval)
- this will lead to a ~2.5 years period until 52416 blocks have passed
* assuming constant hashpower of 3%. bip miners have to keep up mining through the first adjustment periods
People keep misunderstanding what BIP-110 is trying to do because they keep listening to liars and gaslighters.
The biggest misconception is that BIP-110 is merely a technical proposal to stop inscriptions or limit OP_RETURN. It isn’t. At its core, BIP-110 is about preserving Bitcoin’s social contract.
Every monetary system is built on shared expectations. Bitcoin is no different. It exists because millions of people coordinate around a simple idea: Bitcoin is money. That shared understanding determines how developers write software, how businesses build products, how governments regulate it, and ultimately why people assign it monetary value in the first place.
Within Bitcoin there are many competing interests, all pulling in different directions. Some want censorship resistance. Some want digital collectibles. Some want permanent data storage. Some want financial settlement. These competing visions are ultimately reflected in two places: Bitcoin’s consensus rules and the default policy of its dominant implementation, Bitcoin Core.
Until the end of 2025, both pointed in the same direction: Bitcoin is money.
With the merge of Bitcoin Core v30, that changed. By expanding the default relay policy, Core officially acknowledged an additional legitimate use case: data storage. Consensus rules didn’t change, but Bitcoin’s default social signal did.
That distinction is critical.
People often respond, “Even if OP_RETURN is restricted, there are still many other ways to embed arbitrary data.”
That’s true.
But those methods remain hacks.
A hack is an attack. It’s fundamentally different from an officially supported feature. Hacks exist despite the protocol, not because of it. They carry uncertainty. They can disappear at any time. They aren’t endorsed, documented, optimized, or defended by the ecosystem.
That difference matters.
If arbitrary data storage is treated as a legitimate Bitcoin use case, the network becomes an obvious target. Attackers no longer need a costly 51% attack or legislation banning Bitcoin itself. Instead, they attack everything surrounding Bitcoin.
They target wallet developers.
They target node operators.
They target app stores.
They target exchanges.
They target infrastructure companies and miners.
Most importantly, they attack Bitcoin’s monetary narrative.
If Bitcoin becomes widely perceived as “a blockchain for storing arbitrary data,” governments will increasingly judge it by everything anyone chooses to publish forever. That dramatically expands Bitcoin’s regulatory attack surface while weakening its identity as neutral money.
Money derives much of its value from social coordination. Weakening that coordination weakens Bitcoin’s monetary premium.
This is why the social contract matters.
BIP-110 doesn’t eliminate arbitrary data forever. Nothing realistically can. But it restores an important norm: storing arbitrary data on Bitcoin is an abuse of the network, not one of its intended purposes.
Everything else BIP-110 achieves is secondary.
Yes, it would severely disrupt today’s inscriptions economy. Existing businesses could adapt, but they would have to rebuild from scratch on far shaky foundations. Every future project would need to ask itself whether Bitcoin is really the right platform if its business model depends on behavior the network deliberately refuses to support.
That uncertainty alone changes incentives.
Many discussions around BIP-110 get lost in technical details. But Bitcoin has never been governed by code alone.
Bitcoin is also governed by narratives.
That’s why influential figures like Saylor, Fink and a whole entourage of government sewer dwellers spend enormous effort trying to redefine what Bitcoin is. Digital credit instead of money, digital asset instead of a cryptocurrency, digital gold instead of a payment system. The dominant narrative can either make or break this protocol’s future.
If the dominant narrative shifts from “Bitcoin is money” to “Bitcoin is a general-purpose blockchain,” Bitcoin begins competing on entirely different terms - against platforms that were designed for exactly that purpose.
That is a battle Bitcoin should never choose to fight.
People often dismiss BIP-110 as irrelevant, unnecessary, or dead on arrival. Yet many of those same people invest extraordinary effort attacking it every single day.
That contradiction should make you stop and think.
If a proposal truly has no chance of succeeding, why devote so much time and energy trying to stop it?
The effort betrays the intend.
View quoted note →
People keep misunderstanding what BIP-110 is trying to do because they keep listening to liars and gaslighters.
The biggest misconception is that BIP-110 is merely a technical proposal to stop inscriptions or limit OP_RETURN. It isn’t. At its core, BIP-110 is about preserving Bitcoin’s social contract.
Every monetary system is built on shared expectations. Bitcoin is no different. It exists because millions of people coordinate around a simple idea: Bitcoin is money. That shared understanding determines how developers write software, how businesses build products, how governments regulate it, and ultimately why people assign it monetary value in the first place.
Within Bitcoin there are many competing interests, all pulling in different directions. Some want censorship resistance. Some want digital collectibles. Some want permanent data storage. Some want financial settlement. These competing visions are ultimately reflected in two places: Bitcoin’s consensus rules and the default policy of its dominant implementation, Bitcoin Core.
Until the end of 2025, both pointed in the same direction: Bitcoin is money.
With the merge of Bitcoin Core v30, that changed. By expanding the default relay policy, Core officially acknowledged an additional legitimate use case: data storage. Consensus rules didn’t change, but Bitcoin’s default social signal did.
That distinction is critical.
People often respond, “Even if OP_RETURN is restricted, there are still many other ways to embed arbitrary data.”
That’s true.
But those methods remain hacks.
A hack is an attack. It’s fundamentally different from an officially supported feature. Hacks exist despite the protocol, not because of it. They carry uncertainty. They can disappear at any time. They aren’t endorsed, documented, optimized, or defended by the ecosystem.
That difference matters.
If arbitrary data storage is treated as a legitimate Bitcoin use case, the network becomes an obvious target. Attackers no longer need a costly 51% attack or legislation banning Bitcoin itself. Instead, they attack everything surrounding Bitcoin.
They target wallet developers.
They target node operators.
They target app stores.
They target exchanges.
They target infrastructure companies and miners.
Most importantly, they attack Bitcoin’s monetary narrative.
If Bitcoin becomes widely perceived as “a blockchain for storing arbitrary data,” governments will increasingly judge it by everything anyone chooses to publish forever. That dramatically expands Bitcoin’s regulatory attack surface while weakening its identity as neutral money.
Money derives much of its value from social coordination. Weakening that coordination weakens Bitcoin’s monetary premium.
This is why the social contract matters.
BIP-110 doesn’t eliminate arbitrary data forever. Nothing realistically can. But it restores an important norm: storing arbitrary data on Bitcoin is an abuse of the network, not one of its intended purposes.
Everything else BIP-110 achieves is secondary.
Yes, it would severely disrupt today’s inscriptions economy. Existing businesses could adapt, but they would have to rebuild from scratch on far shaky foundations. Every future project would need to ask itself whether Bitcoin is really the right platform if its business model depends on behavior the network deliberately refuses to support.
That uncertainty alone changes incentives.
Many discussions around BIP-110 get lost in technical details. But Bitcoin has never been governed by code alone.
Bitcoin is also governed by narratives.
That’s why influential figures like Saylor, Fink and a whole entourage of government sewer dwellers spend enormous effort trying to redefine what Bitcoin is. Digital credit instead of money, digital asset instead of a cryptocurrency, digital gold instead of a payment system. The dominant narrative can either make or break this protocol’s future.
If the dominant narrative shifts from “Bitcoin is money” to “Bitcoin is a general-purpose blockchain,” Bitcoin begins competing on entirely different terms - against platforms that were designed for exactly that purpose.
That is a battle Bitcoin should never choose to fight.
People often dismiss BIP-110 as irrelevant, unnecessary, or dead on arrival. Yet many of those same people invest extraordinary effort attacking it every single day.
That contradiction should make you stop and think.
If a proposal truly has no chance of succeeding, why devote so much time and energy trying to stop it?
The effort betrays the intend.
If there was as many node implementations as there are Nostr clients, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now
Core needs to protect Bitcoin instead of their grantors’ interests.
Seeing that they can’t get away with making controversial changes without suffering is quite important in and of itself.
In other words, we need to shake them to the Core.
*Pun intended*
I’d argue that the removal of witness data discount would be a better solution to these problems.
Or we could just keep bitcoining and eventually more monetary use crowds out spam.
Bcashers thought blockspace was scarce and that their transactions should be given favoritism.
110'ers believe blockspace is too scarce and their transactions should be given favoritism.
Or we could just stick with the free market for blockspace, unless you think somehow spam is more sustainable than monetary Bitcoin.
I guess if I were that bearish I'd start throwing away the Bitcoin blockchain too.
You’ll only get the point of monetary use crowding out spam if nodes remain reasonably run-able. Op_if exploit did serious damage to that future while core did nothing about it.
You get that we have a blocksize cap and that op return data uses less resources than a similar amount of transaction bytes right?
And the ordinals rash played itself out -- because it was unsustainable nonsense. Meanwhile, it gets buried below the assumevalid height as time goes on.
Tick tock next block.
Bad actor
> participating in a literal 51% attack (or at least, trying to)
> calls me a bad actor
Yea that tracks.
Watch out for reality on August 8, I hear it stings when you slam into it at full speed.
It's not more expensive. There's a blocksize limit. And jpegs take LESS compute as there's less opcodes per block.
Meanwhile, 110 does nothing to prevent the moral/legal hazard because jpegs are still trivial to embed. See
for an example including the example code.
It's literally just a larp. With 1% of hashrate. Generously estimated.
The best way to solve this is to keep the relay policy, to indicate that this is not welcome.
This does not eliminate the policy, however it makes it too uncertain for VC investors.
If anything, they should use witness data, because witness data can be discarded without losing 99% of the benefits of a full history.
So set your relay policy how you like. Nobody's telling you how to set your policy. Libbitcoin's run wide open since 2011 though. And LibreRelay is too. Core backed off their gentleman's agreement because it wasn't stopping anything but was hurting mempool visibility.
You can still set datacarriersize how you like though. It won't work any more now than it did in 2024 but you can do it.
It will take only one difficulty adjustment to return to 10 minute blocks. In fact it's kind of interesting how satoshi designed the thing would actually make this sort of attack (I call bip 110 an attack), would be difficult if not impossible to pull off. He clearly was on another level.
Because 110ers can claim it's a soft fork and claim every 110 block is valid on legacy chain but them trying to tighten consensus is easier said than done. The need to wait approx 4 years to lower the difficulty or they need to hardfork to a pow change or an artificially lower difficulty. That is good engineering.
In Consensus mechanism there's a max retarget defined.
GitHub
bitcoin/src/pow.cpp at 70d9ec7f3d452789d04dce81dc02db0b3b778bb5 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub.
// Limit adjustment step
if (nActualTimespan < params.nPowTargetTimespan/4)
nActualTimespan = params.nPowTargetTimespan/4;
if (nActualTimespan > params.nPowTargetTimespan*4)
nActualTimespan = params.nPowTargetTimespan*4;
Meaning: difficulty can become at most 4× easier in one retarget or 4× harder in one retarget.
So it'll take 3 retargets to achieve 10min timespan:
RDTS period | Expected block time | Duration for 2,016 blocks
| 1st | 333.3 min | 466.7 days
| 2nd | 83.3 min | 116.7 days
| 3rd | 20.8 min | 29.2 days
| Remaining | ≈10 min | 322 days
Oh nice! Didn't know that
If it were a blocksize reduction it'd be bothbmore effective at all of its goals and not wade into the impossible game it tries to. Y'all are literally taking the bait of the ordinals crowd and they're loving how much they can dunk on you.
Thankfully, the vast majoritybof Bitcoiners are notbletting you drag the rest of Bitcoin into this nonsense.
As for CPU constrained, what are you worried about, disk space? 4 MB gonna get you? And you been unable to get transactions in lately? I haven't seen anything about 3 sats/vb for the immediate block in years.
Cheap blockspace is not something you have a right to. The market decides its price. The idea we need to make space for your transactions is exactly what BCH was about and it'll go the same way.
Okay it won't fail the same way. BCH is still around. This thing's dead by September.
If you run an archival node, you sign up for 4 MB/block. Spam does not exceed this. This battle was resolved 9 years ago.
Also, there's not much reason for most people to run archival nodes these days. Pruned works just fine with lightning and electrum servers.
Y'all are really just going looking for conflicts. And surprised that most people have no interest in joining you.
