That's exactly what "they" want; divide & conquer. 🤷‍♂️ We should unite instead. 🤙 View article →

😅 Good luck. 🤣🤣🤪🤣🤣🤣

You’re gonna need it more than us soon enough. But thanks anyway.

1 week. He is still at step 1. DENIAL. Fucking moron!

So Mechanic thought that the commercial miners would signal for the fork instead of following the money with all the wall street and treasury shit going on? Interesting.

Yeah, very naive in hindsight. The band aid has been ripped off as he said. Bitcoin doesn’t work if mining centralised to this point.

Do both?

Im excited again. It feels good to break free.

Me too. This Monday feels fresh and exciting compared to last week’s abysmal depression.

Totally. What a weight off. This was always the way. We tried. Now it's time to do

same but im still gonna play the both sides. i dont feel good about leaving normies to them. all those people have been told to use bitcoin, accept it, in africa, and all other countries, peru etc... they are unaware, they have been told this thing is gonna save them. etc. i also don't feel good about making them buy something idk if its gonna succeed. just hodl both sides. but lots of changes, nostr uses zaps, lots of merchant that accept bitcoin etc, all using the legacy chain. lots of educators around the world also educating people with legacy chain. im not gonna play politics. im just gonna try to take over it. making core irrelevant. making online explorers irrelevant etc. as i said before i can do both. i have the energy. in the next years by some miracle if blake chain can overtake sha256 chain in terms of adoption and recognition. then we can start working on killing legacy chain to irrelevance. it feels good finally getting rid of these scammers and comprised miners. but lots of social systems still works with legacy chain, and explaining what happened to these normies will be even harder.

Fair enough, it’s good to know we have people doing the work there too. They can always come over.

I understand the idea that 20% voted yay, 0% nay, 80% abstained. I agree this is problematic. But I can name many core node runners who publicly were against bip110 and thought it was a bad idea. So, although there was no URSF, it is safe to say that there was absolutely resistance to bip110 by many nodes. Accepting this pragmatic observation changes almost the entire premise of the arguments @Bitcoin Mechanic presents here. And I say that even while continuously being convinced by him on many fronts. Kudos to him for his ability to convey his ideas and arguments in a very coherent, understandable way. But I believe this particular premise is very important. @Bitcoin Mechanic - just for arguments sake - If for one minute you, for arguments sake, you agreed to the idea that nodes running core AND nodes running non-bip110 knots, were all AGAINST bip110, (granted they were operating in the dark while signalling nodes were operating publicly, granted, leave that out for one second) - pragmatically re-considering from this standpoint the amount of nodes in the voting room voting YAY vs the amount of nodes voting NAY. How would that change your perspective / decision to move on to another project?

Seems like he was pretty stuck on the idea that URSF is the "proper" governance method for Bitcoin. Nodes should signal and there should be a "vote". Sorry, its law of the jungle and thats not how consensus governance works.

Can't speak for mechanic of course but for me, the lack of URSF signal is more about honesty and complacency: plebs honestly taking a stand instead of complacently deferring to a few big mining pools. Accepting your hypothetical doesn't change my conclusion from all this. If there had been a URSF with 80% support the only thing that changes is having more respect for the pleb node runner community who actually took a stand instead of deferring to mining pools. But I'd still see a split from core as needed and welcome, as I personally am not interested in some Ethereum 2.0 abomination overflowing with inscriptions, ordinals, and whatever other nonsense core has in mind, no matter how many plebs support it. The reality is there was zero real opposition to bip-110 in the form of URSF, and we are left to interpret this the best we can.

I don't get the "80% abstained" argument. Wouldn't "nay" votes take the form of sticking with the status quo and doing nothing? Isn't that the path of least resistance? You either signal for 110, or you don't. Or, is the argument all based on sentiment and not actual signaling?

Will we get airdrops or not?

We really are, but I would add that it might be helpful to do that interpretation as pragmatically as possible, because it does decide whether you have to leave an incredibly importany project or not. I agree, I dont want to participate in an ethereum 2.0 either. I just dont agree that this particular event has been the deciding factor. There is still plenty to fight for on this side of the fork and I believe it is not only worth it, but mankind relies on us chosing to fight. I can say for me personally, if there had been a guide on how to signal URSF, I might've done it, in favor of regrouping and coming up with a better plan. I wouldn't know how to do that. And since I felt I didn't have a good choice on either side, I leaned on the 110 side. But chosing the least worst option is horrible!! We should have good options!

No. A softfork is consensus valid meaning any new blocks are accepted by status quo nodes. If they rejected those version 4 bit blocks, THAT would be signaling "nay". Usually you would have to run a URSF client or accept the new stricter rules.

Twitter is not the Bitcoin network. Ypu HAVE to run software that enforces your ideas or you have no opinion on it.

Glad hes oit, such an annoying whinger. Misleading plebs and now wants to fork. Good luck with blake coin lol

sha centralized asic shitshow POW

And we don’t need anyone’s permission, approval, or good will.

The sad part is that some years ago a group of people was having the famous "how could legacy finance / governments control Bitcoin?" That "simply" matching the network's hash rate wouldn't be an option was very obvious so the only plausible alternative - at that time - "they'd buy as much as they possible can before start regulating the shit out of Bitcoin." Fast forward to 2026 BINGO!

* famous conversation...

I am confused why so many well intentioned people who were trying to help Bitcoin are now leaving to make their own coin. BIP-110 was one possible solution out of many. The network rejecting it simply suggests that a better proposal is warrented. But after one failed attempt, so many are giving up on Bitcoin. It’s sad to watch. Peace be with us all.

It’s not just because it failed. It’s how it failed. That’s why so many a leaving.

Precisely. The simple fix is just having a decentralised mining. Many independent miners all building their own templates, anonymous and spread around the world. Instead we have 5 big regulated companies, all known and located in two countries.

Leaving for what? There is only one

For now

Because BIP110 chain split provided the ultimate evidence that the core chain decision making is centralised. Bitcoiners are not interested in yet another system with 3rd party and after what happened on 8 august, you will never get rid of that 3rd party on core chain because the mechanism you had for that removal has been proven removed.

OR you can make the next hard fork quantum proof, beat the spammers to the punch and win the game! Check out the latest poll on my feed ♨️

Quantum is a scam.

It is now, you never think it will be a threat? Google isn't spending billions of dollars a quarter for nothing. And the first Proof of concept for quantum technology will be to hack Bitcoin. All centralized institutions are funding quantum and its first target will be the worlds most decentralized network. Think 10 moves ahead friend.

It is a scam. Taproot addresses are vulnerable, but no one uses them. If you always use unique addresses for your SegWit or Legacy UTXOs and never reveal your public keys, the quantum attack becomes prohibitively expensive. Google invests billions because the quantum scam will be the next covid scam, Google is a de facto government owned company and the government doesn’t mind spending billions of *your* taxpayer money if it can gain more control over your life.

True. And what of the proof of work mining itself? A 51% attack becomes much more feasible when you are using Qbits to solve the puzzle instead of regular NAND gate transistors. Don't forget about the OGs that don't have segwit addresses and haven't moved their coins in years. They'll be the first targets. I hope you're right. But I think it's best to err to caution. Besides, why waste a hard fork if not to improve bitcoin against future threats.? The optics alone would be enough to attract apathetic users stuck on core chain. I say offer them something instead of just a moral dilemma.

quantum is a fast analog calculator. i doubt it will be a big lab that figures it out because superpostition is woo. electrons spin bazillions of times faster than they can move. shor's algorithm works either way, but there is no way ibm and google etc have scientists who understand probability. they believe in superposition, which is illogical. you can't do science with the wrong model. ergodicity is what does the magic. it isn't magic. the ruler is just too big to measure the thing. proof of work is a related probabalistic system as using entangled electrons to perform shitloads of calculations. maybe you have heard of the fluid calculators that they used to use in some utility, maybe trains or water supply, i forget. but that is not the ruler they are using. Shor's algorithm is sound. Quantum physics is bullshit nondeterminism. If the universe was not deterministic it would have ceased to exist in the first nanosecond.

The idea of this fork is to normalise using a POW change in emergency scenarios (such as this one). It’s why we’re adopting the name Bitcoin-BLAKE2b, because this might not be the last time we might have to change the hashing algo. The goal is to bootstrap a more robust network, better prepared for the uncertain future and possible attacks. In the end it’s still Bitcoin, it’s just the pow change re mining cartel attack on the sovereignty of the network.

So back to my point: it’s a scam.

There is always the possibility someone will find a shortcut. secp256k1 has half a dozen that peter wuille implemented in the signature verify, sign and public key derivation. In sum they only manage about 10x but there are many other cases someone eventrually found million anf greater speedups. Shor is the potentially most fast but doesn't work on a digital computer. Not to be saying it is likely but it is far from impossible that another hole is found in elliptic curves. Military is the reason, obviously. But that also means dull minds and brute force. The entire government thing is a scam. They rob with inflation. The murder. They steal. They extort. Like Rothbard says. Doesn't change the math. Just doesn't make it so likely to happen soon in their labs.

With all due respect, the analysis that this “proves” all of these things is quite a strong claim. It is, at least, equally as possible that BIP-110 was simply not a good enough of an idea for most of the network to want to adopt it. Just because BIP-110 didn’t pass, doesn’t mean that somehow that Bitcoin is too centralized. It could also just be a humility test that a better idea is needed. There are so many better ideas to solve these issues than BIP-110. Such as removing the witness discount.

I think your idea of what constitutes network is somewhat misplaced. Larger ecosystem meaning miners, exchanges, wallets are servants of the network. The actually network is the nodes relaying information to each other. They asked miners to mine blocks according to some rules and the miners ignored them. There was no refusal to bip110 from inside the network unless you count the inflated 30% of core v30+ nodes which did not explicitly say no.

I appreciate the civil discussion, but I would kindly encourage you to consider how your perspective may too be misplaced. What ends up being consensus is determined by a complex interaction between economic nodes and miners. I am a Bitcoin miner, and one at a hosting company. We at Abundant Mines allowed our clients, who are everyday people like you and me, to decide if they wanted to signal or not signal. I work 1-on-1 with every single client, and had an inside view of the decision making process of everyone. Both those that supported BIP-110 and those that didn't. This idea that there was "no refusal to bip110 from inside the network" is simply not true. At least, it was not at all what I experienced in the real world from people I know who were into Bitcoin. Both from inside and outside my work. There was no corruption, collusion, conspiracy, or anything. Just normal people freely making their own decision, and most people decided against BIP-110. I saw this at my work, at my local meetups, and amongst my friends. From my experience, working with real people everyday, and by observing the quantitative data of the network, refusal of BIP-110 was overwhelming. Please kindly consider that this event is more of a testament to the dangers of social media. It creates an echo chamber where people inside believe everyone agrees with them. It is leading you all to create your own coin, rather than us all working together to find a real solution that helps fix the money. There is only Bitcoin. This is a discussion about the mind, and the illusion it creates in front of our eyes. Not a discussion on whether or not Bitcoin is corrupt. Bitcoin is one of the least corruptible systems on Earth. Our minds are one of the easiest to corrupt. I could be the one that is full of illusion, of course. But this is why we must stick together and work together. Help one another.

If you believe there was no corruption, collusion or conspiracy and that opinions of people around you constitute the consensus reality there is nothing I can tell you to stop you from using the Core version of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not a popularity contest of opinions. The nodes have spoken and the chain has split. People do not gravitate towards Bitcoin because its popular but because it provides decentralized permissionless solution to money. If you're in no need of such solution it doesn't matter what you do next. But if such solution is what you need you'll end up diverging from the centralisation of the entire bitcoin ecosystem. And once that centralised ecosystem turns on the nodes, the social contract is broken and the network naturally defends itself and that's why we are here and that's why people don't want to go back to Core. Parting ways and rebuilding is the right thing to do.

I wish you the best and all the peace. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I am also a miner the same as you are, these people will not accept this reality though. They constantly shriek, "6 big miners" with absolute willful ignorance.

"Bitcoin is not a popularity contest of opinions." Ironic since people like me spent 6 months saying that when you guys thought you could change the network with pleb nodes and you refused to believe us. Serious question, in Sept when no exchanges will list LukeCoin, what will you do next? Continue to trust the plan or wake up to reality?

yeah, the real problem i see is the signatures are too big. i think if you could squish them down to 256 or smaller they might be reasonable. i've been experimenting with using a novel lattice, the loop-free tree structure bethe lattice (aka cayley tree) and the stage i have got to currently the computation to generate them is insane, and i think they are too deep and maybe the wrong coordination number. i don't think anyone has done analysis on this kind of lattice's security properties, the branching makes it exponentially more hard to reverse just as it is to generate. it's probably gonna be a while before i've got it in the shape i want it but i think it's possible. the same lattice has proven to be incredibly powerful for producing semantic graphs too. it's a geometry that came to me after thinking about the idea of spacetime having some kind of subdivision process that drives its motion. the geometry i came up with i didn't know it was a bethe lattice until this year.

most forks are keeping the utxo set and some are keeping the mempool even (but filtering it)

The UTXO set is shared, so whatever you own with your private keys on the one side, the same amount you own on the other. It’s not an airdrop. Airdrops are an affinity scam invented by shitcoiners.

15% still isnt consenus. You can mime >51% if you want to activate bip110. Why didnt u?

bitcoin is not democracy. we didn't even need miner activation phase that was added later. this was an user activated softfork to begin with, and it continues.

Yes , if u dont have consensus, you can always soft/hard fork

from one perspective miners are left, because they didnt follow the rules amd hard forked away, from another perspective bip110 side left, because they didnt listen to miners.

Where is the economic majority? Also the nodes with transactions? Roughnecks/bip110 had 3 blocks in a week?

USD

Haha good one ☝🏻