Replies (48)

yay, maybe we pressed pause. but bip110 blocks real solutions. block new taproot txs. add schnorr based quantum shielded addresses. and bulletproofs. miners need to be paid too. lightning was too effective.
csam is irrelevant. 4mb, not enough for even hd images. luke is controlled opposition. the real issue is miners optimize for yield. the real issue is bitcoin blocks should be for clearinghouse. lightning solved payments too effectively
Got #BIP110? This is when compromised and corrupted Core cucked to spammers, scammers and shitcoiners. image
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
They don't love Bitcoin Freedom Money. They love abusing Bitcoin with spam for their own grifts and scams, just like on Ethereum. See below what Ethereum is. image View quoted note →
View quoted note →
If that mail wasn't fake it would clearly mean that Foundry was against bip110 as clearly asking members to vote with any non vote counting as "no", a " yes" outcome is impossible to happen. If there was any demand to signal bip110, a pool will just provide an alternative endpoint for those users.
"iT's eXaCtLy tHe sAmE aS tHe rEd bLuE gAmE tHeOrY!!!" yeah, sure it is, IF choosing red also signals your consent to on demand anal probes and surveillance. It sets a dangerous precedent for random governance and disabling/limiting privacy features, limiting bitcoin based smart contracts and future impulsive chain splits/forks. All in an attempt to limit spam that will still be possible and has been possible for ages via many different mechanisms. If you still don't get it, justify the 55% "consensus" threshold. This smells a lot more like a shitcoiner motivated attack than a purist "bitcoin is solely money" principled stand. Bitcoin Script was there from the very beginning and taproot has been in the works for ages. You want a better bitcoin than what is being maintained by core for over a decade? Chose from one of the 50 million shitcoins or roll your own. Reducing the "consensus" threshold proves this is a contentious attack against real consensus by definition and is against the well established bitcoin ethos. Retards are here to "fix" bitcoin. Enjoy your hastily implemented minority fork and uniting with your malcontent comrades in the BCH and BSV crowds.
"I'm not a developer but I'm going to weigh in on a highly technical modifications to the first ever distributed governance protocol governing the first ever true freedom money because I have an opinion." Good stuff. Good luck with that.
BIP-110 is extremely simple, few lines of code, dEvEloPer, and its tested and discussed for a year already. All monetary functions of Bitcoin continue to work.
Bronek's avatar
Bronek 2 days ago
I love the fact that you put actual video here and not link to YouTube owned by big tech selling your data giant - Google
it doesn't delete taproot. it doesn't hash the receiver pubkey. it just stops the spam for a while. and blocks adding new witness programs which aren't spam.
with bip110 you can't just build a new tx. look it up. unless recognised by his majesty sir luke dash junior. things like bulletproofs, p2spkh
so you can just go and believe people won't shoot you when you steal their wallet, right? right? no consequences. all fake. belief system. fuckin communist.
People just live for too long in slavery Your imagination is no longer even enough to imagine a form of society in which no money exists. Among other things, this is certainly also a reason why humanity is still on the civilization type 0. Completely Uncivilized. Their minds and hearts are trapped for centuries now.
TheKayman's avatar
TheKayman 2 days ago
This is a ~100kb image, give or take the extra metadata added by iPhotos. 100kb seems sufficient to get a high enough level of detail. image
TheKayman's avatar
TheKayman 2 days ago
If foundry were against it, wouldn’t it make sense for them to not offer the option at all? Foundry ultimately gets to choose. Assuming this is real, the fact that they have offered the choice to its hashers means they are willing to run bip110. This means they must have tested a node implementation that enforces bip110. To me this doesn’t sound like opposition, it sounds like neutrality. A neutral party to bip110 will always run bip110 if it becomes clear that opposing it is becoming increasingly riskier.
Burrows's avatar
Burrows 2 days ago
Why do they want to get rid of NFTs Ordinal Inscriptions? To save fiat? Not the goal of bitcoin .. And the rules only apply for 1 year? What's the point?
Your entire statement can be summed up as "shitcoiner projection" Especially the part about BCH and BSV Core are the ones that removed the data cap. Your pedophile spam coin is the new BSV. You're the ones trying to turn Btc into media hosting instead of transaction data
well, it sure would help if there wasn't a witness discount. but how to get miners to agree with that.
Community warning: a shitfork shill who promotes the fork but refuses to swap sats to get more on its side, hence himself deeming it less valuable
Rob Hamilton 's avatar Rob Hamilton
It’s important to have a futures market with any contentious fork in Bitcoin. Why? Because the party forking gets what is called the “free call option”. They can tweet, do long monologue videos about how their fork will win, and how no one will oppose them. They can use company resources to legally pressure miners, post populist rhetoric disassociated from reality (pľēb şľőp) and then… wait. The activation comes, and they are delta neutral on a fork. If… No fork happens - they have their bitcoin. The fork is successful - they have their bitcoin. A chain split happens - they get Bitcoin on each side of the fork See the problem? There is an opportunity cost of time and resources coordinating the fork (maybe reputation too), but that’s it! They can antagonize the network at no cost of bitcoin. It’s worse than that though, everyone who told them they were wrong can’t even dump their hostile fork if they fail to even launch it. The actual party who has to put up material cost in a fork are the miners. Since they cannot mine on both chains at once, they must choose where to secure coins. The only publicly stated mining pool position on this fork is f2 pool opposing it (~12% of hash rate). My proposed on chain futures market requires no ecosystem coordination. The Bitcoin is settled automatically, and in the event there is a chain split, each side gets 2 BTC (each party gets the bitcoin they think will “win”). A futures market forces actors among the Bitcoin network with different opinions to put skin in the game, price the risk, and act. It presents an opportunity to lock up Bitcoin for a time, and profit as a rational actor if they have conviction in their position. The market will do this independent of your wishes otherwise. Via prediction markets, on chain, or exchange future markets (any exchange could get fees for swapping the fork to buy more bitcoin). We saw futures markets with the last contentious fork in 2017 when bitfinex listed futures. If no market forms at all, it shows there are not two sides to the market, I’m here as one side of the market, so we know the side that is a no show. This kind of weakness is death for a fork. If the side forking is unwilling to burn the ships, and put their bitcoin at risk, they are of low conviction and the fork will fail. There will be a myriad of reasons as to why people who are so vocal and certain that BIP 444 will activate, won’t bet. To be clear, it’s cope. Their optimal positioning as it relates to the opportunity to wager is: 1. Ignore 2. Public consider the bet, but to never commit. 3. Hand wave any reason to say the market is either immoral, illegitimate, impractical etc. Any of these maintains the illusion of strength when they are actually weak. A requirement in fork psychology is to appear as if it’s a certainty, because forking is a game of chicken with the network. A 1:1 ratio implies a 50% chance likelihood to succeed, far lower than they’d have you believe success is. Additionally, to counter offer with a differnt ratio/odds gives up the game. They blink, show their hand and signal that they think 50% is way to high of a likelihood, and all the bluster comes tumbling down. I’ve given feedback on the GitHub already from a technical perspective my objections to the BIP, they went largely unaddressed before the GitHub was locked. Notice who will continue engaging in this content without taking the bet, they are seeking attention because they must consume the discourse as their shred of a hope to win. Surely, there is already rumbling of restricting how 444 works, already a weakening of their position. People will say I am wrong, but won’t take the wager. Makes you think right? I’ll give 10% of my potential winnings from the contract if you refer a BIP444 proponent into actually making the bet with me. So whenever you see someone talking about the certainty of this fork activating, link them to this post so we can both make some bitcoin!
View quoted note →
Lol no. Nobody cares about your dumb censoring proposal. Making miners vote will only demonstrate this clearly. That's the good thing.
TheKayman's avatar
TheKayman 2 days ago
I think you’re missing my point. I’m saying, regardless of what the hashers of foundry do or don’t vote for, foundry have made it clear that they are willing to run bip110 (with the caveat that this info is true) Ultimately if the hashes decide against bip110 the decision still rests with foundry, who to reiterate are obviously neutral on bip110 for them to be giving the courtesy to their hashes.
We've had over a decade of "I'm new to bitcoin and here to save it". Nobody is falling for your low value takes except morons. I sense either the same extreme and immature hubris or an alternative motive. Fed? Shitcoiner? Doesn't matter. Irrelevant. You'll learn the easy way or the hard way. If it does manage to fork and survive more than a block, be sure to put your money where your mouth is by selling all of your bitcoin and investing it all in your new shitcoin fork. Shitcoiners never learn.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
By Arthur The Capture by @hodlonaut in 1 image. Readme file Jan 6, 2009: "Bitcoin is an electronic cash system". Readme file 2022: "Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency". May 9, 2022 Core maintainer @laanwj argues "What is Bitcoin is very much up for discussion, delete it." 1/3 image And so it happened that Bitcoin Core lost contact with the roots of Bitcoin. Here is where Bitcoin changed from a strictly monetary tool to a multipurpose database *also* to be utilised for sec data driven use cases, something that Satoshi disgusted. 2/3 h/t @LapiuPepe for pointing me here. Sources for the screenshots: BitcoinTalk (where original SourceForge files are posted), Github. 3/3
View quoted note →
Electronic cash requires privacy. "Temporarily" limiting underlying features that improve privacy is an attack. Simple majority low threshold consensus is an attack. You'll learn, or the people you influence to sacrifice their bitcoin will learn and you'll collect your paycheck for undermining the good works of others.
FUD? All monetary functions of Bitcoin Freedom Money continue to work. BIP-110 defends Bitcoin Freedom Money - THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Permissionless Freedom Money, The Greatest Store of Value and The Strongest Hope for Humanity. You defend who? Faketoshi? Compromised and corrupted Core? Andy Back, the Epstein's friend? Saylor?