Reacting To Matt Odell On BIP-110
Login to reply
Replies (14)
In before @Jameson Lopp hard cope post
😂
The main justification from Core for the OP_RETURN uncap is “harm reduction”.
The argument is that inscriptions done via the segwit/taproot hack have potential to do more damage than inscriptions via OP_RETURN.
Thing is, LukeDashjr made a PR in 2023 to fix the vulnerability introduced by taproot.
PR #28408
It would “effectively limit arbitrary data carried via newer methods (including SegWit witness data and Taproot scripts), which inscriptions/Ordinals were using to bypass the existing OP_RETURN-based limits and embed larger payloads.”
If that had been merged, the current harm reduction narrative wouldn’t even be there.
It wasn’t merged. Core didn’t want it.
Peter Todd was among those who Nacked it with this rationale:
“The transactions targeted by this pull-req are a very significant source of fee revenue for miners. It is very unlikely that minres will give up that source of revenue. Censoring those transactions would simply encourage the development of private mempools - harmful to small miners - while making fee estimation less reliable.”
Note the use of the word “censoring” to describe fixing a very recently introduced vulnerability that opened up for ordinals.
Self inflicted wound, willingly not patched up, used as rationale for a new self inflicted wound.
View quoted note →
#runknots #bip110 #bitcoin #knots #noderunner
There are way too many weak arguments by Odell. It is easy for him to "stay humble and stack sats" while he collects "bitcoin industry" revenue to pay his expenses. There is no bitcoin industry the same way the BitTorrent protocol is not an industry. It is FOSS, and those who seek revenue from "developing" or "programming" it are an attack vector.
After watching the full video, I’m extending an olive branch to @ODELL and @TFTC. I’ll stop calling them spooks or bad actors. And I apologize for doing that for quite a while.
It’s clear to me now that they’re natural allies of #BIP110 who simply don’t understand what it does, how it works, or why it matters. That’s an education gap IMHO.
Credit to @Matthew Kratter for putting the video together. Without it, I probably wouldn’t have watched ODELL’s rant at all. It gave me a broader perspective and enough reason to revise my view - for now at least.
View quoted note →
After watching the full video, I’m extending an olive branch to @ODELL and @TFTC. I’ll stop calling them spooks or bad actors. And I apologize for doing that for quite a while.
It’s clear to me now that they’re natural allies of #BIP110 who simply don’t understand what it does, how it works, or why it matters. That’s an education gap IMHO.
Credit to you Matt for putting the video together. Without it, I probably wouldn’t have watched ODELL’s rant at all. It gave me a broader perspective and enough reason to revise my view - for now at least.
Fees don't price spam out, spam is getting larger. Look at the data.
you asked for comments about this kind of videos
well, athough very long i appreciate to show those influencers missing the point.
one point that i think should be more explained is about bip110 being "temporary"
imo it's good to be temporary iot give some time to reach a better solution (as said by luke)
it's a humble point of rdts misunderstood i think
there is no precedent for activating a temporary soft fork, especially if the "plan" doesn't exist
If it's possible for a lawyer to be involved you're on the wrong side of history.
Religious virtue signalling usually a bad sign.
Fucking legendary
Well said ...Odell is acting shady