Replies (103)
What's unsafe about it. What does that mean?
People say that and then there is no backing other than they don't think it has support. So why try I guess.
"Chancellor on the brink" is arbitrary data that your fork doesn't even get rid of. You're not even effective at the tssk you claim to be
August is going to be interesting.
A fork war at the bottom of the bear cycle is a Bitcoin classic.
View quoted note →if it makes sense you might get it through
Did someone finally started running a URSF? Ballsy if true. Stupid, but ballsy.
To not accept BIP110 you need to run a counter hard fork. Otherwise you’re just ambivalent to it, not against it. Saying it has no support is ignoring reality, which is a common theme among core supporters.
We have around 15 Eh for now. Soon we’ll have all of it.
🎯 the most sneaky type of change
SuperTestnet is a retard who loves all of his toys, even if he never uses them or anyone else for that matter.
Liar. Rob built a trustless p2p futures contract. No third party required.
It'll follow the chain with the most valid proof of work. Same with anything other than a 110 activated Knots node, which dill discard a longer chain if it doesn't signal for 110 at the mandatory signaling height.
The only case where it could cause issues is in the event that somehow the longest chain starts off as non-110 and then flips to 110 somehow.
But yes, it's safer than being on the one that is far more likely to be a dead shitcoin.
If you're worried avoid transacting for a few hours around activation just to be sure. Or, send your tx's in that time period with an op_if or an 84 byte op_return so they aren't replayable on the 110 chain if by some miracle it wins.
They're not even at 1% though -- I sleep easy.
83 bytes and coinjoins still work?
🤡🤡🤡
Next month is gonna be really rough for Luke.
View quoted note →Good luck
Liar
🤡
hey man. you told me earlier today on X that BIP-110 wasn't a hardfork, based on me sharing
@L0la L33tz's article from last year. so which is it?
Reading the comments under any of Luke’s posts ruins my mood and makes me fearful for the future of humanity. Everything he’s saying here is objectively true. Yet it breaks people’s brains. Sometimes I wonder how he’s not overwhelmed by the hate and lies thrown at him. I guess being a true believer in Christ can give you superpowers.
View quoted note →It isn’t. What in Luke’s post makes you think it’s a hard fork?
What are the implications of BIP110 regarding Lightning Nodes? Do you recommend closing channels until things get sorted out?
Why are BIP110 proponents on nostr when there's CSAM on nostr?
Can you point to a single instance of CSAM on the blockchain presently?
Dreaming
*Rejecting* BIP110 is the hardfork.
BIP110 is a softfork.
Luke is preparing to blame Bitcoin Core for the inevitable chainsplit he will have caused by claiming that everyone else is responsible for not upgrading to his non-supported delusional fantasies, forking him and the poor people that have been intentionally misled by him off the network – but I don't think anyone who has been following his very public meltdown is going to be surprised by this complete lack of an ability to take responsibility for his own actions 👍
@Tauri | Bitcoin (XBT) thoughts on Luke’s mental gymnastics here?
i wish it didn't have to come to that, but i believe it now that i've seen things progressively get worse over the last month.
I like how you talk about him like he's not in the room because he won't respond to criticism like all the other influencooors.
I truly wish you the best of luck with your new money my guy
What mental gymnastics? All he has said in this post is objectively true. Either you can’t read or you don’t understand how soft forks / hard forks work.
What if there’s no chain split, hag? What then? Would you come and apologise to Luke? I doubt that. You’re one step away from being a shitcoiner yourself.
Rejecting a soft fork happens *only* if you run a counter hard fork. Soft forks add or tighten rules. Hard forks removes or loosens rules. If you don’t run/signal for the soft fork, you’re not rejecting it. You’re simply ignoring it. Ignoring a soft fork can’t stop it from happening.
Grab your popcorn, it's gonna be entertaining!
Thank goodness no one is rejecting BIP-110, we're just ignoring it and allowing it to wither away into irrelevance!
Grab your diapers.
Because when I use Nostr, I’m neither required nor ever will be potentially required to store a raw CSAM image on my hard drive.
You are free to fork off.
dashjr'd!
Well math says she's done either way:
View quoted note →Supertestnet made one to be a troll, but I doubt anybody runs it lol
We're not ignoring it. We're ridiculing it. There's a difference.
Our nodes are ignoring it though.
Nodes ignoring it won't stop it from happening.
Miners ignoring it will. Or, rather, will cause it to chainsplit. If enough of them ignore it that chainsplit may as well be a death sentence unless there's a PoW adjustment to speed up block creation.
Any word on why miners are not bothering to activate yet? Surely with only a 55% hurdle there's not a lot of incentive to wait until mandatory signaling. Is that 4% really what they're holding back for?
You’re insane. The people clinging to the status quo aren’t causing the hard fork—you are by trying to force BIP-110. Own it.
We should collect some sats. Maybe we can cure this mental illness.
View quoted note →(from the perspective of the nodes)
I don't have a strong view for or against BIP110, but I don't understand this type of statement and I am somewhat worried about the activation mechanism chosen through the UASF.
If most the nodes weighted by economic relevance and most of the hash power did not signal for BIP110, how could this constitute a contentious hardfork attempt, and why would it be abnormal for BIP110 to fail in this situation?
The chain should have been hard forked the day core30 was released.
This whole soft fork bullshit just to wait for core to pull a hardfork is a waste of time I agree.
Core deserves the blame, 100%
Lol, yea, nodes setting policy like they always have really riles you guys up.
Please stop projecting.
Node runners are riled up because core are trying to set policy.
If you think that the btc blockchain should be used for media hosting, just be honest about it instead of putting yourself through all these mental gymnastics.
I'm calling Poe's Law on this one. I can't tell who's joking anymore.
Either way, August is right around the corner.
If they have no incentive to activate then it's not clear why they ever would. The whole point of a UASF is to exert leverage on the miners.
Nodes can set rules but rules without blockspace do not a chain make.
I don't like spam, but my understanding is that BIP110 does not significantly increase the cost of spam (sub 1% for ordinals). I don't mind the signaling aspect of BIP110 as a way to protest Core, but at this point it seems Core lost any legitimacy and new clients will mostly take over.
It’s all so tiresome
Feel bad for people that actually believe the nonsense he spews
Are you going to disprove what he said here or will just avoid it like you did the first time when I asked?
You ignorant fool, you don't have to trust
@Rob Hamilton because the fork futures contract is open source code that you run yourself.
If you can't read the code then you can hire someone else or have your favorite LLM audit it. Or you can just keep posting retarded vitriol 😘
You too.
You degenerate gambler.
#BIP110 is Bitcoin Freedom Money 🤙
liar
nope, and you know it
Core is responsible if there is a chain split. They made the controversial change. They can easily put back the op return limit and this whole thing ends in 5 mins.
Why won’t they do this?
The semantic bullshit war is on
I will maliciously and deliberately hardfork Bitcoin by doing fuck all.
Yes, you're an ignorant fool if you believe that objective code somehow gets tainted if its author is impure according to your subjective perspective.
There was resentment, but it's not overwhelming. And the resenters don't actually understand the change.
Going for the Cry Harder grand championship, I see.
Formal game theory huh. I don't need it. I see clearly.
Good luck.
See....you clearly don't understand the change. Core didn't need to increase this at all for "database features". They could already do that before the change.
It doesn't care about yours too, #BIP110 🤙
lol "objective code" from corrupted dev ... oxymoron
I am mostly worried that the risks for the network effects due to a potential chain split could far outweight the marginal benefits provided by BIP110. As I said I don't mind the signaling, but not at the cost of damaging the network effect. I would have been much more comfortable to signal if it had not been of the UASF. I would be fine with BIP110 activating with 90% support or failing with 5% support, but I would not like it if it activated with low but significant support.
It didn't improve any monetary properties, not did it degrade them. Why does the change HAVE to effect its monetary properties at all? Why can a change not be agnostic to those properties? Does any change's mere existence demand a change in monetary properties? It is not me dancing my friend. Bitcoin is not only my savings account, it is also my spending. The unit of account.
Easy. There is so much more than just the below but it shows corruption well. The OP_RETURN uncap PR, the rejection of the inscription exploit PR and more and more and more.
I am not into gambling. Only into Bitcoin Freedom Money.
It’s getting out of hand. BLM all over again…
They're doing mind control on you, aren't they?
No, he is uncontrollable? 🤡
Calle's parrot🦜 😂🤣
🤯
they already told you why. you just decided to not understand it and make up a different reason in your head
Where? I have been asking this question since January… still haven’t heard a legit excuse. You have one?
BIP110 does not cause a chain split.
People trying to stop it might do one to retaliate, though
You can write anything to the block, that's right. What would you say about 75% witness discount though? It's fiat thinking in plain sight. As long as everyone can pay their fare price on a fee market future will settle other debates.
The issue is not Core vs Knots. It's witness discount and people paying 25% for the real price of bits
Yes
"Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt."
It's hard to believe how retarded you are.
Knots is right on track to cause a minority chain split. Weeks before mandatory signalling BIP110 runners claim still to be determined to keep running BIP110. If August 7th comes and less than 50% of miners signal BIP110, you get a chain split.
I see how mandatory signalling can make a soft fork a success even if only a minority cares but with a minority less than lets say 20% this doesn't work. Nobody knows how big that minority group needs to be but I'm confident claiming that 0.3% is not enough and I would be shocked if 10% were enough.
The level of delusion is incredible. I hope that after this all fails miserably you'll take the hint and go away.
I don't think it's about network share. Those are empty numbers that can be manipulated. It's about economically relevant nodes that originate high volumes of transactions (e.g. exchanges, swap services, etc...). If none of those entites are signaling BIP-110, the miners can't be bothered to care. After user activation, BIP-110 will immediately drop in hash rate and transactions will take hours or days to confirm at a safe depth. It will die so fast, and so many of these amatuer outrage-addicts are going to be even more confused and angry than they already are.
Miner signalling is at 0.3%. I don't care about "node signalling".
For some reason I either completely misinterpreted your note or replied to the wrong one. Can't for the life ofe think why I was replying about nodes.
I understand your problem but you create a situation that will be used against us in the future. Someone with enough hash will come along and use this template to really hurt us. Still running 27.0
Complete nonsense
Also relevant:
Check the ratio, #isthisyourking
View quoted note →A chainsplit by it's very nature is the result of two groups disagreeing, not one causing it. I disagree with the facetious definition of hardfork. But I fear for bitcoin without the node runners and miners willing to put everything on the line to enforce rules to make it... well... bitcoin... and not crypto. Whether they're right or wrong about the effectiveness of BIP-110, they are the do-ers, we need do-ers.
