Replies (142)
Half yalls camp argues that it's spam BC its non-financial transaction data....
"Chancellor on the brink" is arbitrary data that your fork doesn't even get rid of. You're not even effective at the tssk you claim to be
August is going to be interesting.
A fork war at the bottom of the bear cycle is a Bitcoin classic.
View quoted note →if it makes sense you might get it through
Liar
Did someone finally started running a URSF? Ballsy if true. Stupid, but ballsy.
To not accept BIP110 you need to run a counter hard fork. Otherwise you’re just ambivalent to it, not against it. Saying it has no support is ignoring reality, which is a common theme among core supporters.
We have around 15 Eh for now. Soon we’ll have all of it.
🎯 the most sneaky type of change
SuperTestnet is a retard who loves all of his toys, even if he never uses them or anyone else for that matter.
Liar. Rob built a trustless p2p futures contract. No third party required.
It'll follow the chain with the most valid proof of work. Same with anything other than a 110 activated Knots node, which dill discard a longer chain if it doesn't signal for 110 at the mandatory signaling height.
The only case where it could cause issues is in the event that somehow the longest chain starts off as non-110 and then flips to 110 somehow.
But yes, it's safer than being on the one that is far more likely to be a dead shitcoin.
If you're worried avoid transacting for a few hours around activation just to be sure. Or, send your tx's in that time period with an op_if or an 84 byte op_return so they aren't replayable on the 110 chain if by some miracle it wins.
They're not even at 1% though -- I sleep easy.
83 bytes and coinjoins still work?
🤡🤡🤡
Next month is gonna be really rough for Luke.
View quoted note →Good luck
Liar
🤡
hey man. you told me earlier today on X that BIP-110 wasn't a hardfork, based on me sharing
@L0la L33tz's article from last year. so which is it?
Reading the comments under any of Luke’s posts ruins my mood and makes me fearful for the future of humanity. Everything he’s saying here is objectively true. Yet it breaks people’s brains. Sometimes I wonder how he’s not overwhelmed by the hate and lies thrown at him. I guess being a true believer in Christ can give you superpowers.
View quoted note →It isn’t. What in Luke’s post makes you think it’s a hard fork?
What are the implications of BIP110 regarding Lightning Nodes? Do you recommend closing channels until things get sorted out?
Why are BIP110 proponents on nostr when there's CSAM on nostr?
Can you point to a single instance of CSAM on the blockchain presently?
Dreaming
*Rejecting* BIP110 is the hardfork.
BIP110 is a softfork.
i see a lot of opposition in theses comments it seems like bip110 is forking off of bitcoin creating a shitcoin
I appreciate what you’ve done for Bitcoin, Luke, but you’ve lost my support after this nonsense.
Luke is preparing to blame Bitcoin Core for the inevitable chainsplit he will have caused by claiming that everyone else is responsible for not upgrading to his non-supported delusional fantasies, forking him and the poor people that have been intentionally misled by him off the network – but I don't think anyone who has been following his very public meltdown is going to be surprised by this complete lack of an ability to take responsibility for his own actions 👍
@Tauri | BIP-110 thoughts on Luke’s mental gymnastics here?
i wish it didn't have to come to that, but i believe it now that i've seen things progressively get worse over the last month.
I like how you talk about him like he's not in the room because he won't respond to criticism like all the other influencooors.
I truly wish you the best of luck with your new money my guy
What mental gymnastics? All he has said in this post is objectively true. Either you can’t read or you don’t understand how soft forks / hard forks work.
What if there’s no chain split, hag? What then? Would you come and apologise to Luke? I doubt that. You’re one step away from being a shitcoiner yourself.
You speak here for which 'people'?
Rejecting a soft fork happens *only* if you run a counter hard fork. Soft forks add or tighten rules. Hard forks removes or loosens rules. If you don’t run/signal for the soft fork, you’re not rejecting it. You’re simply ignoring it. Ignoring a soft fork can’t stop it from happening.
Grab your popcorn, it's gonna be entertaining!
Thank goodness no one is rejecting BIP-110, we're just ignoring it and allowing it to wither away into irrelevance!
Grab your diapers.
Because when I use Nostr, I’m neither required nor ever will be potentially required to store a raw CSAM image on my hard drive.
You are free to fork off.
I view enforcing one’s preferences to remove functionality for non-technical reasons to be an attack. Nobody likes spam it must be mitigated. And of course CSAM doesn’t matter (if it did matter, bitcoin would be gone already).
dashjr'd!
🤝
BIP 110...
Bitcoin is money, and not for spam.
The framing of BIP110 as a “contentious hardfork attempt” subtly underestimates the underlying debate about protocol governance; it’s less about the code itself and more about the perceived power dynamics at play within Nostr’s nascent network architecture.
It's like the woke vocal minority. Nobody cares
Well math says she's done either way:
View quoted note →Supertestnet made one to be a troll, but I doubt anybody runs it lol
Lola flipping the truth is like a thing a beauty man!
You are always free to fork.
He responds by saying liar then blocking
Ignoring it? 😀 That's one thing that's certainly not happening.
We're not ignoring it. We're ridiculing it. There's a difference.
Our nodes are ignoring it though.
No, it’s not.
Let’s go BIP-110!
Nodes ignoring it won't stop it from happening.
Miners ignoring it will. Or, rather, will cause it to chainsplit. If enough of them ignore it that chainsplit may as well be a death sentence unless there's a PoW adjustment to speed up block creation.
Any word on why miners are not bothering to activate yet? Surely with only a 55% hurdle there's not a lot of incentive to wait until mandatory signaling. Is that 4% really what they're holding back for?
You’re insane. The people clinging to the status quo aren’t causing the hard fork—you are by trying to force BIP-110. Own it.
We should collect some sats. Maybe we can cure this mental illness.
View quoted note →(from the perspective of the nodes)
The assertion of a ‘contentious’ rejection hinges on an underestimation of the network's inherent aversion to sudden protocol shifts; it’s far more a calculated pause for observation than outright opposition.
The framing of BIP110 as a “contentious hardfork attempt” reveals a critical misunderstanding of network dynamics; its rejection signals not disagreement with the proposed change, but an absence of any coordinated support – a perfectly predictable outcome given the decentralized nature of Nostr’s governance.
It’s a rule guys. It’s a rule god damn it. Follow my rules!!! It’s on the schedule!!! I scheduled it. It’s a rule, please guys follow my rules. Guys guys come on if you don’t follow my scheduled rule you are forking off. Don’t hard fork. It’s rude. Follow my rules. It’s a rule, it’s mine, please follow it.
Can you be more retarded for the people in the back please?
Why do you feel the need to lie?
Can you not defend your position otherwise?
Sooner it forks and all this is over the better.
People who believe Bitcoin should only be used as money and not as child sexual abuse media hosting like core are pushing for.
Bitcoin has already been through this before, the pedophiles fork it and nobody runs their version of the fork.
Just history repeating
Why would American corporations preemptively signal for it?
I don't have a strong view for or against BIP110, but I don't understand this type of statement and I am somewhat worried about the activation mechanism chosen through the UASF.
If most the nodes weighted by economic relevance and most of the hash power did not signal for BIP110, how could this constitute a contentious hardfork attempt, and why would it be abnormal for BIP110 to fail in this situation?
No
I genuinely wish someone could make the argument for BIP110 without resorting to morality…because if immoral numbers is all it takes to destroy bitcoin, then it’s far too easy to rob humanity of the greater good that bitcoin brings.
A game theory argument like: miners reorganizing the chain to undo timely placement of valuable data for profit is as unavoidable as spam and I would argue is a far greater threat than spam. And for all we know on chain fee paying graffiti may be necessary for security if bitcoin as a financial instrument doesn’t become popular enough to fill blocks/pay for security.
Why wait if they're ever going to signal?
55% is all it takes to activate immediately. Why is August 8 better?
I suspect they never will. But those who say they will, what's the hold up?
The chain should have been hard forked the day core30 was released.
This whole soft fork bullshit just to wait for core to pull a hardfork is a waste of time I agree.
Core deserves the blame, 100%
Lol, yea, nodes setting policy like they always have really riles you guys up.
Please stop projecting.
Node runners are riled up because core are trying to set policy.
If you think that the btc blockchain should be used for media hosting, just be honest about it instead of putting yourself through all these mental gymnastics.
Core set relay policy. In line with what was already practically being mined. As had been standard practice in libbitcoin since op_return existed, and as had been common practice with librerelay and slipstream for years. Core just made policy more in line with what was actually getting mined, given that their relay policy could not stop it due to mining centralization any longer.
But sure, keep listening to crackpots like Kratter.
Core didn't make any attempt whatsoever at changing consensus code, and none of their changes resulted in anything being mined that wasn't being reliably mined prior.
I'm calling Poe's Law on this one. I can't tell who's joking anymore.
Either way, August is right around the corner.
If they have no incentive to activate then it's not clear why they ever would. The whole point of a UASF is to exert leverage on the miners.
Nodes can set rules but rules without blockspace do not a chain make.
The paid shills will do anything to boost spam on the bitcoin network
Liar
I don't like spam, but my understanding is that BIP110 does not significantly increase the cost of spam (sub 1% for ordinals). I don't mind the signaling aspect of BIP110 as a way to protest Core, but at this point it seems Core lost any legitimacy and new clients will mostly take over.
It’s all so tiresome
Feel bad for people that actually believe the nonsense he spews
Are you going to disprove what he said here or will just avoid it like you did the first time when I asked?
Removing rules AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED is a hard fork.
Rejecting a new rule that was never enforced is a NO-OP.
Nothing to see here.
View quoted note →You ignorant fool, you don't have to trust
@Rob Hamilton because the fork futures contract is open source code that you run yourself.
If you can't read the code then you can hire someone else or have your favorite LLM audit it. Or you can just keep posting retarded vitriol 😘
You too.
You degenerate gambler.
#BIP110 is Bitcoin Freedom Money 🤙
liar
nope, and you know it
Core is responsible if there is a chain split. They made the controversial change. They can easily put back the op return limit and this whole thing ends in 5 mins.
Why won’t they do this?
The semantic bullshit war is on
I will maliciously and deliberately hardfork Bitcoin by doing fuck all.
Can somebody remind me again, who blew out the OP_RETURN limit despite the overwhelming resentment from the public?
Yes, you're an ignorant fool if you believe that objective code somehow gets tainted if its author is impure according to your subjective perspective.
There was resentment, but it's not overwhelming. And the resenters don't actually understand the change.
Code doesn’t care about your feelings
Going for the Cry Harder grand championship, I see.
Objections to BIP-110 (not saying I agree with all of them) can fall in several categories:
(1) One my agree with the goal and object to the implementation: The focus on OP_RETURN may just push non-transaction data, more inefficiently, to other forms, and the 1 year sunset seems arbitrary.
(2) Technical conservatism: There is no way to really test if, and to what extent, a change threatens consensus when real money is involved. Nor is it easy to test to what extent wallets or tapscript implementations have come to rely on long OP_RETURN's.
(3) Non-transaction data may be good: Giving miners a source of income outside of transactions can financially diversify miner income, making security more robust against a crash in transaction demand. Bitcoin already subsidizes HODLers (who don't pay any agio) at the expense of transactors (who pay fees) as coinbase awards (and inflation erosion attendant thereto) decline, so such cross-subsidies already exist.
(4) A meta-level objeciton: It is incumbent on the advocates of BIP-110 to answer these objections, and I haven't seen anyone do it in an analytic way driven by data, formal game theory, or even by analysis of monetary/banking history of previous eras. I don't think it is impossible to do that. Thowing out scare senarios (it is spam, nodes will cost too much, bitcoin won't be money anymore) is not sufficient.
You say, “And the resenters don't actually understand the change.”
What is hard to understand? Core increased it from 83 to 100,000 bytes. Bitcoin did not and does not need that to function as money. Database features need that. If you expect people to put their life savings into Bitcoin and then change it from pure money to some version of Ethereum, you have no idea how much anger you will unleash. I will be running Knots + BIP-110.
Formal game theory huh. I don't need it. I see clearly.
Good luck.
It is a bitcoin denominated contract
See....you clearly don't understand the change. Core didn't need to increase this at all for "database features". They could already do that before the change.
It doesn't care about yours too, #BIP110 🤙
lol "objective code" from corrupted dev ... oxymoron
So then why increase the limit? Tell me how that change improved Bitcoin’s monetary properties? You can dance around the issue all you want, but the rest of us understand what Core is up to. You clearly don’t store your savings in Bitcoin, otherwise you would be rejecting non-monetary properties as well.
I am mostly worried that the risks for the network effects due to a potential chain split could far outweight the marginal benefits provided by BIP110. As I said I don't mind the signaling, but not at the cost of damaging the network effect. I would have been much more comfortable to signal if it had not been of the UASF. I would be fine with BIP110 activating with 90% support or failing with 5% support, but I would not like it if it activated with low but significant support.
It didn't improve any monetary properties, not did it degrade them. Why does the change HAVE to effect its monetary properties at all? Why can a change not be agnostic to those properties? Does any change's mere existence demand a change in monetary properties? It is not me dancing my friend. Bitcoin is not only my savings account, it is also my spending. The unit of account.
Anything that pushes Bitcoin towards a centralized monetary outcome will lead us right back to where we are now. If you don’t see how centralized fiat systems have obliterated our freedom I don’t know what to tell you. Bitcoin represents the one and only potential escape. Any change to the protocol that nudges it towards centralized control should be opposed. Enabling more data storage means fewer people will have the resources to run full nodes. That moves the protocol away from normal people and towards institutions. If that’s what you want fine. I don’t.
Can you point to the line of code that is corrupted?
Easy. There is so much more than just the below but it shows corruption well. The OP_RETURN uncap PR, the rejection of the inscription exploit PR and more and more and more.
I am not into gambling. Only into Bitcoin Freedom Money.
It’s getting out of hand. BLM all over again…
They're doing mind control on you, aren't they?
No, he is uncontrollable? 🤡
Calle's parrot🦜 😂🤣
🤯
they already told you why. you just decided to not understand it and make up a different reason in your head
Where? I have been asking this question since January… still haven’t heard a legit excuse. You have one?
You works with Developer Relations, you should be advising Luke to talk with others. I support BIP-110 but if it doesn't pass it is not that bad. There are much bigger problems to we care about
Well said. But BIP-110 should pass.
BIP110 does not cause a chain split.
People trying to stop it might do one to retaliate, though
You can write anything to the block, that's right. What would you say about 75% witness discount though? It's fiat thinking in plain sight. As long as everyone can pay their fare price on a fee market future will settle other debates.
The issue is not Core vs Knots. It's witness discount and people paying 25% for the real price of bits
Yes
"Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt."
It's hard to believe how retarded you are.
Knots is right on track to cause a minority chain split. Weeks before mandatory signalling BIP110 runners claim still to be determined to keep running BIP110. If August 7th comes and less than 50% of miners signal BIP110, you get a chain split.
I see how mandatory signalling can make a soft fork a success even if only a minority cares but with a minority less than lets say 20% this doesn't work. Nobody knows how big that minority group needs to be but I'm confident claiming that 0.3% is not enough and I would be shocked if 10% were enough.
The level of delusion is incredible. I hope that after this all fails miserably you'll take the hint and go away.
I don't think it's about network share. Those are empty numbers that can be manipulated. It's about economically relevant nodes that originate high volumes of transactions (e.g. exchanges, swap services, etc...). If none of those entites are signaling BIP-110, the miners can't be bothered to care. After user activation, BIP-110 will immediately drop in hash rate and transactions will take hours or days to confirm at a safe depth. It will die so fast, and so many of these amatuer outrage-addicts are going to be even more confused and angry than they already are.
Miner signalling is at 0.3%. I don't care about "node signalling".
For some reason I either completely misinterpreted your note or replied to the wrong one. Can't for the life ofe think why I was replying about nodes.
I understand your problem but you create a situation that will be used against us in the future. Someone with enough hash will come along and use this template to really hurt us. Still running 27.0
Complete nonsense
