Thank you, Matt, for the principled approach you have taken in the videos you have produced. I appreciate the care and effort you have put into this process. Bitcoin is one of, if not, the most important software/economic projects in the world today. The issues around defining spam, and the way culture-war dynamics shape that conversation, are under-discussed and underrepresented in the Bitcoin media landscape.

Why are y'all being so gay and talking to each other over response videos. Have a fucking debate and move on. The plebs and pioneers olare tired of y'all being such huge pussies

Crypto trading is the easiest and fastest way of making money online,many people are earning through Bitcoin trading,if you're also interested to earn through crypto kindly send a direct message to 👇👇Robert Oliver or click on the link below to send him a direct message on 𝓦һɑ𝘵𝓼𝔸𝚙𝚙 at +44 7459 127100

Awaiting for comment from Slopp that will accomplish nothing.

The view from the outside in my sphere is that BIP-110ers are just trying to gain more control.

Core will destroy itself in time. All centralized hierarchies do over time. Keep up the good fight kratter ⚡️

🪢🛡️⚒️🌊

Matt's kids downloading CSAM. Amazing FUD, Matthew. Gourmet FUD! What about the transactions of rapists, arms and drug dealers, terrorists? Those things are okay to download and "validate" 😱 ?

Ignorant question - why not just run an older pre-v30 version of Core thats been tested instead of gambling on a fairly new soft fork?

That’s what I do, but at some point we will need software updates and we will need a more permanent resolution to this issue.

Why will we need software updates?

Compatibility and there are a few known bugs which will require a fork in the future, if I remember correctly one big one related to time-stamping. In addition, I would consider the inscriptions and ordinals to be a vulnerability and an improper use of network resources, and just like any open source project, you want it to be addressed. I understand others share different perspectives but almost everyone knows we cannot just lock in on Core 29 forever and leave it at that. Bitcoin is a project which requires vigilance and maintenance.

Yeah, Kratter is the picture of principals with his incessant videos of Gloria Zhao and her sex life. Real peach of a guy and Christian. Spends all his time thinking and posting about child porn and who Gloria is sleeping with.

Core’s datacarrier is broken in all recent versions and it’s not working for policy. That’s why so many people run Knots.

Do higher on-chain fees reduce spam? If so what is the reason transaction volume being so low, lightning ETFs custodians in general? Healthy bitcoin is high fee Bitcoin? So that the incentives work squeezing the smaller less subjectively valuable transactions onto layer 2s. So the real primary threat comes from adoption of Custodians/Bitcoin exposure "products". Limiting actual use. Everybody agrees spam on chain is a problem but it is impossible to define what spam is externally. The only mechanism capable of removing spam are fees on an individual basis. BIP110 is like treating a symptom (spam) modern medicine rather than finding the source of the problem. When treating symptoms it keeps us from understanding the underlying problem and potentially increases the damage the underlying problem will cause. If you must to attack Bitcoin directly you will fail, the only real attack vector is to slightly manipulate incentives and allow Bitcoin to kill itself, BIP110? Problem: What is causing low on chain transaction volume/fees?

@ODELL will likely regret picking up fight with @Matthew Kratter in the future since the majority of the plebs know who will be the winner in this battle. I also think the majority of the plebs know that Lameson Flopp is a bad actor but what was shocking to me is one of the most regarded bitcoin only media outlets @TFTC shared his retarded article on X(which was published sometime yesterday)...!!! Moreover, Lameson Flopp and Odell have sort of same prediction about BIP110 and I don't really think this is just a coincidence if you connect the dots. If @TFTC was really monetary maximalist then they would have shared articles written by bitcoiner like @Renaud Cuny. It seems like as soon as you show any disagreement with @ODELL, your articles or thoughts will not get amplified by him or Marty Bent or @TFTC. Anyways it's becoming very clear that successful activation of BIP110 might be the end of @ODELL 's career as a simpfluencer and VC. View quoted note →

Low on-chain fees is healthy for bitcoin. We want to keep fees as low as possible, for as long as possible (Some of you might be tempted to disagree with me, but the bitcoin network doesn't care about our opinions 😂; it autonomously decides to go in roughly the direction I lay out here) Low fees are helpful for the security of Layer 2s such as Lightning, as it makes it easier for the honest party to get their transaction on-chain in a crisis. And low fees obviously help with scaling bitcoin So our collective goal is to keep transactions off-chain as much as possible An inevitable consequence of that is spam, but that doesn't matter. As long as we keep the spam in contiguous data (e.g. OP_RETURN and Witness data) then there is no harm to node runners. I'd much rather 100kb of contiguous-data spam, than an extra 1kb of data in the UTXO set Unless your money transactions *decreases* the size of the UTXO, please use Layer 2 instead

Should we be fixing a problem before it has arrived? How can we accurately define the problem if it isn't here yet? (high on chain fees) are their consequences to fixing problems that currently don't exist? Is it ever possible to define "honest party"? "so our collective goal is to keep transactions off chain as much as possible"... Aren't high fees the only thing to incentivise this, the literal pricing mechanism and tampering with the pricing signals gets us into some serious trouble? Look to any of the unlimited historical examples. Would you agree it might be possible to remove too many transactions off chain? What would the result look like if so.... If you look at Bitcoin alone you might think it is dying, similar to an old tree being overtapped, transactions representing its the flow of sap, and spam representing the buildup of moss or fungi. On chain fees are a measure of how much off-chain transactions could take place before damaging the underlying chain. If we see 'subjective' spam appearing on chain, maybe we overtapped the tree... maybe we're killing it. Instead of manually removing the moss or fungi build up with bip110 we should on chain some transactions and aggressively discouraging bitcoin derivatives socially. 1 solving problems before they arrive. 2 creates new problems, spam. 3 solve for new problem, setting precedent by defining spam externally. Instead of using pricing incentives the only real spam filter Looks a lot like the beginning of a negative feedback loop or governmental growth. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by "good intentions"." I agree with every one of your points but it is the consequences I am afraid of. As we're all aware we can't plant another tree.

You keep mentioning "spam". Why? I work on bitcoin systems to make bitcoin the best form of private and scalable money. I judge each proposal, e.g. BIP110, on whether it helps or hinders our monetary goals BIP110 harms the moneyness of bitcoin in many ways, for example making it harder to run a node, and therefore I'm not going to give BIP110 a free pass because of some spam paranoia

What do you think of the idea, transaction fees are essentially consumed by layer 2s, and over harvesting could potentially damage layer 1? Opening the door for arguments such as bip110 or whatever the large custodians will come up with?

'impossible to define what spam is externally.' It's this kind of gaslighting nonsense that is the reason BIP110 exists. Everyone knows what spam is. Those that claim not to must be viewed with suspicion.

Maybe a better way to put it is, it's a gradient of more spam-like or less spam-like transactions and custodians and layer 2s are effectively subsidising more spam-like transactions if used when not necessary, based on current fees. Just seems like we don't need to change Bitcoin we need to actually use it.

There is no gradient. It's either a financial transaction that uses the monetary network as it was designed to be used, or it's spam. You can't stop all spam but that doesn't mean you have to make the network spam friendly.