Replies (85)
Boludo!!
El gitano que vende autos usados en mi barrio, me dijo que me aleje de este personaje.
Alto timbero!!
View quoted note →I'm disappointed, but not surprised. The lack of takers for a wager on Bitcoin Core v30 and now BIP-110 suggests a lack of conviction among their proponents. A trustless fork futures contract would provide a clear incentive for them to put their money where their mouth is. I'll believe it's more than just FUD when I see someone willing to put at least 1 BTC on the line.
"trustless fork future contract" where ? 🤔
explain if you're not slopping btc 🤷🏻♂️
Bip-110 is only active for a year it's a temporary solution
Shut the fuck up Lopp. No one took the wager because that was never the concern. Intellectually dishonest as usual.
Yep, Gotta say nobody cares.
If it wasn't a concern then they shouldn't have made the claim. Are you willing to put BTC at stake in a fork futures contract?
This is retarded. One's beliefs on whether the UASF will happen and be successful is a separate thing from the belief about what is the best use/design of the protocol.
Unwillingness or inability to acknowledge this difference is just proving the point many have been making about your character and motivations.
Correct, they are separate.
I'm not interested in what fringe puritans believe, I'm interested in seeking consensus and determining what will happen.
99% of the people argument for knots or at least against core have no idea what they are talking about. They made stuff up, repeated stuff they heard. The
V30 is now the largest node software, and nobody noticed or cares.
They don't contribute, they don't know how to read the code, and judging by the total number of nodes, they don't even run nodes or miners.
This is why prediction markets and wagers outperform commentary as truth-finding mechanisms. Opinions are free to produce — positions cost something. The moment capital is at risk, the incentive to be accurate overtakes the incentive to signal tribal affiliation. What would it take to make fork futures contracts liquid enough to price every contentious BIP in real time?
Your time is paid and funded by Wallstreet and that is what altered your character and standing against Bitcoin.
Simply spamming the node runners storage space and removing their option to filter at their will is exactly different take of what UASF wanted to achieve and lead to the death of the network through centralisation which was proven to other shitcoins.
So sad that money bought your once admirable self. Just shutting up and accepting humiliation of accepting the wrong would put you almost back to your early reputation but seems like you're not in control anymore.
I will never forget what you once did but will also never accept your BS anymore.
Bitcoin IS a living thing and it's immunity still works and bad cells will exit with waste while new fresh ones will continually vitality it stronger and stronger.
I shall run knots and train all my connected fellow bitcoiners how to run one as long as I can and teach them to never trust but just verify including me and anyone else, knots devs too.
Lopp has been greedy since the early days
I strongly believe seatbets drastically improve security while driving, and agree on making them a default standard in every car. Yet I am not willing to bet 1 BTC on me not crashing while wearing a seatbelt, nor on me crashing while not wearing it.
I get the point, but if a hardfork happens, the wager is already in. Just keep your coins in the correct branch from your point of view, and sell coins from the other to buy more.
I'm bald too, I can understand the sexual frustration Missis Lopp, the desperate call for attention. I feel you bro.
So was income tax
I'm gonna interpret that as a no, you have no conviction to put skin in the game. Talk is cheap and your words have no value to me.
Aside from the metaphor making no sense, the goal of BIP-110 is a soft fork rather than a chain split / hard fork. Even if there is a chain split there won't be replay protection. Thus you're spewing nonsense.
My point is I'm interested in the bet, but it's not clear how bip-110 will progress.
It'll probably be called something else by the time it's implemented, or core will allow op_return filters at some point, idk
I still haven’t touched my node since last year
Social attacks on consensus should have a cost. If people are unwilling to put any money up front on the bet then no one should take them seriously. The fact that this offer has been made multiple times and not a single knots fanboy has accepted tells me this is not a serious effort.
I mean if it’s an emergency you would think the people pushing for it would be a little more convicted.
yeah at this point I think bitcoin is ossified to core v29 forever
We’ll see what the market decides in time
I'm just learning how the LND works, so I'd better stay as an observer and watch all this bitcoin coreV30 chaos unfold👀
ah, that toy contract with the readme screaming "demo only ⚠️"
what a reckless move from an tech expert !
what nonsense to bet on possibly ambiguous activation definition !
and trolling hard to get luke and the crew to fall for it 🤦🏻♂️
The above is a signet proof of concept.
It's open source and less than 1,000 lines of code: security review should only take a few hours. Obviously we'd create a mainnet version and have multiple experts review the code before depositing funds. I'm not going to put my money into a contract that hasn't been extensively reviewed.
sure the code can be audited (with ai even easier)
but the flaw is the very possible ambiguity in what counts as "activation" !
in this scenario, that ambiguity is almost guaranteed
Betting on the outcome does not make social attacks more expensive. More like the opposite, as it’s incentivising on the conflict, not adding a cost to creating one. Did sports betting stop any match?
Surprisingly for some, people in favor of the new proposal are actually putting effort on creating a fork, instead of just gambling on the situation. In my opinion, that’s what takes the cost. Moving fiat is easy, but showing computing power is expensive. That’s why btc works by proof of cpu work, not proof of stake.
Activation is as simple as the BIP-110 rules being enforced. How activation occurs is irrelevant. There is no room for ambiguity.
The comparison makes sense to me. I can be confident on something without putting money on the line, and nothing is 100% certain, that’s what I wanted to explain.
True, in an ideal “frictionless” situation bip-110 proposes a temporary softfork. But still, the money is already on the line, in the chain, and time will tell. Gambling does not show conviction or real intention. And opinions should not be discredited because there is no money behind them. (imo)
sorry but
there’s no ambiguity only if you precisely define "where" enforcement is measured
any enforcement at any time? enforcement on the final most-work chain? reorgs and temporary forks make this far from trivial
People putting up their coins in a bet doesn't affect the outcome, but rather signals their belief in the likelihood of the outcome. Nothing achieved except for maybe posturing.
Not to mention the amount of people who actually have 1 BTC. Extreme privelege to have that much, when probably most plebs new to BTC are just getting by.
The people who support the thesis of "BTC should be only monetary transactions" are the kind who think BTC is the best money, so are not going to be willing to be so flippant as to make a bet to prove whatever it is you think you are proving. In fact, locking one's funds up on such a bet can immediately change one's incentives. Now that person would be more likely to convince people of their side through deceptive or underhanded means to prevent them from losing such a large bet.
Real shitcoing/crypto energy, which I guess is to be expected.
How is this not obvious?
Read the link and understand that it relies upon the OP_IF opcode that would be invalid if BIP-110 rules are enforced. The how and why of enforcement activation is irrelevant.
It sounds like you don't understand the game theory behind forks. It's entirely based upon economics.
A bet won't change the outcome, but it provides a strong signal as to how the fork factions are economically weighted.
TL:DR if the only folks supporting a fork are a handful of poor plebs yelling at clouds, we can expect the fork to fail.
This post sponsored by Citrea.
Rug the spammers.
Yes, rug me by taking my bitcoin! How much are you willing to commit?
King shit
You can afford to lose a bitcoin or two unlike those of us who haven't sold our souls. I'm sure you got a nice bonus for doing Citrea's bidding.
View quoted note →"LA LA LA LA LA, I CANT HEAR YOU" -SLOPP
Greed & lies.
Centralized vs. Decentralized. Learn the difference.
BIP-110 Welcome.
Censorship on chain level – Who gets to define "spam"? Breaks Bitcoin's core neutrality & permissionless ethos. No content-policing in the base layer.
UASF chain-split risk – Tiny signaling (~2-3% nodes), forced activation = 2017-style fork war redux. Economic suicide for noobs & hodlers.
Slippery slope to protocol capture – Ban inscriptions today, privacy coins or "bad" txs tomorrow. Turns sound money into politicized shitcoin ruleset.
V30 isn’t “the largest.”
It’s only a miniscule ~15% of reachable nodes.
Knots sits around 22–23%.
No one “noticed” because nothing changed. The network was never singular.
Numbers don’t care about narratives.
Knots Go Up
Dashboard to view Bitcoin Knots stats
"Time to put the ‘bit’ in Bitcoin 💥🪙"
We should not be arguing about this. Spammers say you can’t define “spam”. It’s not that difficult- if you need to attach large amounts of arbitrary data, or hide it in massive amounts of unspendable “dust” outputs, then it’s not a financial transaction, and belongs somewhere else that’s not on the bitcoin blockchain. I agree there’s a bit of a slippery slope here - like how side-chains anchor on the base layer blockchain, and we should periodically reconsider how much arbitrary data is needed for financially adjacent use-cases.
Who was claiming that “Bitcoin Core v30 was going to result in a massive node crash / network outage”? It seems like you offered a bet that nobody would reasonably take and now claim it means people were wrong about something vaguely related.
Instead, can you please explain the rationale for the Core v30 changes to OP_RETURN and why they are beneficial for Bitcoin as money? I still have not heard a single rational explanation for that change.
For those reading the thread (because you obviously already understand this - and that’s why you keep pushing it), 1 BTC for you is far less of a commitment than 1 BTC for many other people.
That’s if the bet makes sense. I’m not sure this bet even makes sense.
I think the issue people are raising is that spam is bad and that we should discourage spam. Your response should also be that spam is bad - but you refuse to say that, so people reasonably conclude that you have a financial interest in spamming the Bitcoin blockchain.
We can define spam as non-monetary use of Bitcoin - then legitimately argue about how to identify that via dust outputs etc…
We should also agree that fighting spam is not really hard (it’s tedious, but not difficult from a technical perspective. Knots has some very simple spam filters Core could adopt - that would need to be periodically updated as spammers change tactics).
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't need to gamble to show my conviction. I just need to run my node.
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Reminder:
The social contract wasn't broken by Core, it was broken in February 2024 when MARA launched Slipstream.
Slipstream is a service to mine any consensus valid transaction for the right fee, bypassing normal mempool policy entirely.
This contract was technically enforced by mempool filters like the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit, however Mara’s Slipstream proved that these filters were just "gentlemen's agreements" that large miners could bypass at will.
Core's op return changes 20 months later weren't "enabling spam", they were acknowledging this broken contract and that the filter had already failed because you can't enforce gentlemen's agreements when miners are openly advertising they'll ignore them.
These changes once again even the playing field for those wanting to get their transactions mined.
It's harm reduction, plain and simple.
View quoted note →
We don't care which node you run, you can even run a Bitcoin SV node for all we care.
Skin in the game is not running some software on your VPS.
You don't NEED to do anything, but consensus game theory is ultimately economic in nature.
Knotzis won't be able to push miners into doing their bidding unless they have sufficient economic power to reject blocks of which they disapprove and thus ensure that the miners can't realize revenue.
Your non-economic nodes can reject all the blocks you want and miners won't care at all.
The fact that Knotzis have zero economic conviction tells me everything I need to know about how this fork is going to go.
Once again, why do you care so much what he's doing?
Let people do what they want and stop trying to persuade people to your shitty way of thinking about it.
The irony of you calling people knotzies is hilarious because Its quite the other way around.
🌻
Man, I have been looking for a single BIP‑110 promoter who doesn’t consider it a shitfork for over 3 months. I’m willing to swap smaller amounts via a trustless (on‑chain) multisig. It turns out, they’re all full of shit liars who push others towards a fork that they don’t believe will succeed.
If I may; the use of a term such as 'knotzis' might be mildly amusing but it's also part of a cultural change which is accelerating our decline in standards. We can have disagreements, without ever reaching agreement, without the use of absurdist name calling. It's better when we don't do that.
It is absolutely the most used node version.
V30 is currently 15.4%, knots 2025110 is 9.5%.
Overall of course core is 77% and knots 22.8%. roughly.
Core v30 has apart 67% more nodes by volume than knots 2025110.
Not taking the word of a dishonest shitcoiner.
"Ohh you can afford to gamble hundred thousand dollars on some retarded nonsense where I'm going to scam you? Ohh you don't have convictions"
Most retarded argument I've seen from lopp so far
Bitcoin exchange rate crashed because of core 30.
I myself like most people involved have all given up.
I don't see a future for Bitcoin with pedophiles put in charge of maintaining the code.
The moment the core pedophiles are removed from power/chain forks you will see a new all time high.
Until then it's going to keep crashing
So your argument is that the pedophiles with the most money should be served at the expense of everyone else?
Money to spin up an extra 2000 corporate core 30 nodes, somehow makes the pedophiles argument stronger?
That's extremely dishonest, I hope you scum burn up all your money trying to make core30 look popular.
When it does fork your spamcoins will be absolutely worthless
Pedos running nodes. 😂
The rat thinks there's going to be a fork 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Just to be clear, his thesis and some others is that anyone running core from here on out is not only a pedo, but apparently a wealthy one who must be spinning up hundreds of nodes to pump the node counts up for core.
Wow
😂😂😂
I ami'm confused by the phrase "economic conviction". My node is lighter to run, and costs me nothing to change clients. I relay the transactions that make sense to me, and I encourage others to do the same. If nobody follows me, then the rest of the network can have clogged mempools that need a plunger. Keep in mind, I don't even have to run a node in the first place. It's a volunteer system.
"Knotzi" is the perfect term because they're authoritarians who seek to only allow "pure" Bitcoiners to use the network.
🥺😆😅😬🤣🫠
What would a narc do? Marketing via virtue signaling—a twofer.
By "pure Bitcoiner" are you referring to monetary users? I would argue that the mempool.space clogging jpeggers with their 0.1 sat per vbyte "transactions" are making node running not fun anymore. I have my 2023 prune=550 snapshot zipped around 5 gb now about 13 gb in 2026. The UTXO bloat from all this unfun garbage is filling up my RAM and disk and I am not a "Knotzi" for choosing a peaceful separation from jpeggers. If you disagree, you are welcome to relay it, store it and promote it. As for me, I enjoy my light, suckless node.
I run a node on a mini-PC and a 2T SSD. I'll upgrade when it's time but for now it's amply sufficient. I take the under that spamers will be filtered out by proof of work as was originally intended.
I am very picky on which games I "put my skin". I am using multiple tools and resources to judge the pros and cons of spam tolerance on Bitcoin. Your coding expertise and( hats off !) your pre eth/shitcoin involvement have been great but now they aren't enough to convince me to tolerate spam.
Your "skin" comes from $30/BTC and mine comes from a much more expensive one. If "skin" is measured with how much of your sacrifice you put to get that amount of BTC the ratio of " skin" should be different.
If you're so convinced that you're right go and debate with many of those who you're avoiding continuously by putting the right "skin in the game" ratio.
Because these people are otherwise wasting everyone's time whining about something they have zero conviction about. They don't have to do anything, but since they also won't shut up you'd expect them to be willing to act when it's required.
So to be clear, knots didn't workout for him, so bip110 was created as well/instead?
I doubt your target audience has 1btc to wager.
This is a plausible explanation.
I love the idea of pre-30 Bitcoin nodes living forever now.
If there are crucial soft forks in the future, but they're built on post 30 or knots, I just won't run them. Bitcoin devs cooked themselves on both sides in this debacle.
Yeah they’re fucking around too much and I don’t like taking these risks because of their disagreements
Stop putting dickbutts on the time chain spammer.
Speaking about yourself eh?
Nice straw man.
Notice how these retards never have any kind of argument they just accuse you of saying shit you haven't said or resort to personal insults.
They always resort to ad hominem attacks once they’ve exhausted their arguments. At that point, it’s a complete bleed-out.
Except that's quite literally what you claimed.
That pedos have more money are and will spin of nodes to prop up core v30 and beyond.
