The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone.

I’m not trying to debate people repeating talking points, I’m speaking to those still thinking carefully about Bitcoin’s long‑term health and I’m honestly signaling where my thinking is on this topic right now.

Appreciate the perspective. I consider Bitcoin to be alive and thus able to change itself when under attack to thwart the attack. Death is failing to react to changing environments and circumstances.

I just see a wrecking ball between core v30 and bip110 if this thing actually swings.

I share this view. unfortunately core decisions led to this.

Maybe. It is happening.

I guess I should just by ETH then 😂. Bitcoin is no longer conservative.

Bip 110 is super conservative. It takes us back to basics. Thats one way I see it.

Yes. Which is why it must be temporary...

I think keeping bitcoin simple is great. Everything is temporary. This even if this wasn't explicitly made to be temporary, we can Kwaus make changes, right? Bitcoin is alive.

It is in the real sense (should the monetary maxis end up succeeding with BIP-110)

indeed, long-term health is a must v30 was a shitrea experiment bip110 is the immune reaction sorry, but core must eat this humble pie

Up next: Bitcoin(tm) Roadmap Control harder dude.

You went straight to the heart of where we actually disagree: metaphysics. I don’t see Bitcoin as a living organism that “changes itself to thwart attacks”; I see it as something more foundational than that, a fixed substrate of block time and block space on which a digital‑native civilization can live and evolve. In that frame, we (humans, miners, apps, cultures) are the living things. Bitcoin’s job is to be the reliable physics those living systems adapt within, not to constantly adapt its own physics in response to every conflict. I think you’re right that Bitcoin started in a very anarchic governance phase, and you’re also right to push back against it sliding quietly into a pure technocratic regime where a small center steers everything via Core defaults. Where I diverge from both BIP‑110 and v30 is that each, in different ways, treats the base layer as a policy instrument—one via consensus, one via powerful defaults, rather than as almost‑untouchable ground truth for anyone who wants to verify. It may be that Bitcoin isn’t yet in the “civilization substrate” phase I’m describing, and that the 110 vs v30 struggle is part of how its future governance form gets clarified. I can respect the role you and Luke are playing in the here‑and‑now; I’m just aiming at a different end state: consensus rules that ossify into boring physics, cheap verification for as many humans and agents as possible, and culture/policy carrying the weight of our disagreements about how to use valid blockspace.

OP_IF - anti-spam is a consensus, nobody declares themselves pro-spam - abusing arbitrary data is unhealthy in the long run OP_RETURN ASAP - hoping core finally eats this humble pie and comes up with some of that legendary "high-level" expertise to fix the arbitrary data flaw 🤷🏻‍♂️ @Adam Back @Peter Todd @Matt Corallo @Matthew Kratter

I'm curious, do you run a node? If so, vote with it.

"reliable physics"...bip 110 is part of that reliability.

jfc sorry but both of you should stfu

its a demonstration of how Decentralization Theater is not actually a system of governance. Core decides. Follow along or go fork yourself.

No

fair enough its just embarrassing

Yes. And I will.

I don’t disagree.

Your "argument" is no basis to force others to store and distribute anything, much less CSAM.

I run Knots and already refuse to relay or store anything I consider abusive, including CSAM, so my position is explicitly not about forcing others to carry that data. Your reply tries to turn disagreement with your preferred consensus level filter into an accusation of being “okay with CSAM,” instead of answering the core point that Bitcoin’s consensus rules must stay neutral and predictable while questions about what nodes relay are handled by law, norms, and node policy.

BIP 110 is the most neutral rule that it can exist. It removes all large arbitrary data. By this it achieves the goal to allow only monetary data and lets say a negligible amount for non-monetary data that can be used sensibly and that can't abuse Bitcoin.

GitHub

bips/bip-0110.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.