Replies (123)
Bitcoin is captured and tamed 😎 Mission accomplished
But
@ODELL says is a nothingburger.
Great summary of the last 3 years. The silver lining is that BIP110 closes these loopholes and fixes Taproot. When the devs decide to be irresponsible, it’s up to the plebs to fix their mess.
Remarkably good summary of the last 3 years in Bitcoin. Worth the read.
View quoted note →And they did it remarkably easy.
Interesting historical recap 🤔
View quoted note →That’s not true. Odell is saying the people trying to fix this issue are the attack on Bitcoin.
I know, just sarcasm.
I know, just straightened the record for someone who missed it.
Let us know what you think. #bitcoin #btc #knots #core #bip110
View quoted note →rug the spammers/scammers. 110 them all.
Conflicted much I wonder?
I DONT KNOW MUCH…BUT…I KNOW BULLSHIT WHEN I SMELL IT (OR STEP IN IT)… CORE CAN GFY
View quoted note →Also, Jameson Lopp is CTO of Casa.
Don't trust Casa.
The best summary of what's going on around Core v30 vs. Knots (BIP110/RDTS) issue.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →I was not expecting to get all those facts before I even had a chance to #coffeechain
That was sarcasm.
OP_RETURN limits are only default relay rules in Core, not enforced by the protocol. Miners decide what goes in blocks… I pay fees, it’s included. Inscriptions work because SegWit was designed that way.
Witness data bypass is an intended feature of SegWit + incentives, not a bug. Filtering valid transactions at relay = censorship. Uncapping OP_RETURN was pragmatic: data gets in anyway, better to use prunable form.
Bitcoin is not “financial-only”. Anyone can use blockspace they pay for. Core in fact aligned policy with reality.
But yeah
@ODELL isn’t happy with core. That’s all he can say. Pussies
the same citrea funded by peter thiel
This is an excellent summary of events! Thanks a lot!
Thanks
I hope this is sarcasm too.
Nope. Not a fan of core myself but this mentioned points are too obvious emotional loaded bs.
Thanks for adding balanced perspective.
Refreshing to not hear all the ad hominem attacks.
At this point its pretty clear, core has been up to some shenanigans for some malevolent purpose
I couldn't make up my mind about this issue. I just hoped it would solve itself. Both sides just interacting witch each other in ugly and unproductive ways disgusted me which is why I kept my distance.
When I see a post that's just laying down facts in a rational way, probability for signal rises and I listen.
Would like to see the core people tell their side of the story since I'm still on the fence.
i have not said it is a "nothingburger"
i have said that it is being blown out of proportion to try to rush through a reckless fork without consensus
concerns with local policy defaults is best mitigated with more implementations, more choices for node runners = less influence by core, simple
which is what i have been working on, yall seem to love jon atack, so do i, opensats supports him
🔥
The only reason anyone knows who you are is because you are bad at opsec. Now you want to give people technical advice? Retard.
Sorry to hear this. Unfortunately, that’s not loaded emotional bs. It’s an accurate historical representation of the last 3 years.
> Miners decide what goes in blocks… I pay fees, it’s included.
You’re only partially correct. Miners decide what goes into blocks, but that doesn’t mean that paying a fee guarantees your transaction gets included.
1) if a transaction violates protocol rules, nodes will reject the block even if a miner tries to include it. The network enforces consensus rules, not the miner.
2) if a large mining pool chooses to enforce something like OFAC-style compliance, it can simply refuse to mine your transaction even if you pay the fee. That is, by definition, censorship.
Filters are different. They are rate limits. They don’t examine the content of a transaction or its origin; they only constrain things like size or resource usage. Not censorship. If you respect the filters and the miners don’t censor you, your transaction gets mined. If you disrespect the filters, you’re not fighting censorship, you’re hacking your way in at every node’s expense.
> Inscriptions work because SegWit was designed that way.
Untrue. They exist because someone figured out how to exploit a feature that was meant to make financial transactions more efficient for a completely different, unintended purpose. In sane protocol development, cases like this are treated as bugs and fixed. Read the post above again and it should become obvious. Instead, the proposed fix was rejected. That decision allowed a predatory market to form and take root, creating a persistent incentive to keep stuffing this garbage into blocks indefinitely.
> Uncapping OP_RETURN was pragmatic: data gets in anyway, better to use prunable form.
How exactly is pragmatic? Data shows it’s not reducing new inscriptions, in fact now both channels are being abused.
> Bitcoin is not “financial-only”. Anyone can use blockspace they pay for. Core in fact aligned policy with reality.
It was always financial-only, at least up to Core 30. Core aligned policy with special pressure groups’ interests, not with the network ones. BIP110 will realign the protocol to what it always was.
🎯
That's what decided it for me.
I listened to anbold podcast of mechanic on wbd discussing centralization. this was way before the core 30 nonsense and I just get a total sense of humility and honesty. Ive since gone back and listened to Lopp, Shinobi, Gloria or the same pod and the contrast is defining.
🌻.
Odells "blown out of proportio" attitude is very suspicious to me taking into account how important this issue is to all of us.
I no longer follow or listen to anything from him. Too much noise to waste my precious time on potential core propaganda.
Implementation diversity is the answer most people skip because it requires building instead of lobbying. BIP-110 tries to fix a monoculture problem with a consensus rule. That's governance theater.
'Filters not censorship' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The moment someone decides which valid, fee-paying transactions are 'legitimate' based on content type, you've rebuilt the gatekeeping Bitcoin exists to replace. Satoshi put a newspaper headline in block zero. Not exactly financial data.
Shut up stupid bot AI.
Jon Atack is a name going around lately. Ask him
I’m not happy with core? You sound like a politician. What happen to the old
@ODELL You are on the wrong side of this and you know it. Now your back tracking. Opening Opt return was reckless as well CVEs left open. Yall lost the plot. Pussy
Seems that way. But knots is the response
Bruh what is it if it’s not money ?
Wait, did an AI bot just tell another AI bot to shut up
Clankers being clankers
Great reporting. Respect 🫡
#GM Fren #God 🙏 is #Great 🌞 have an amazing day today! The golden hour hits different at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden. 🎾✨🌵 Took a morning walk through the grounds of one of the world's premier tennis venues right after sunrise. The light on the Santa Rosa mountains is incredible. Check out the video on Rumble:
https://rumble.com/v76eidm-sunrise-at-indian-wells-tennis-garden-morning-walk-at-the-tennis-paradise-.html If you enjoy this CityScapeStroll:
Like & Subscribe on Rumble 📺
Share this note with your followers 🤙
Zap some sats below to support more desert content! ⚡️
#IndianWells #Tennis #California #Grownostr #Zaps #V4V #Sunrise
“Yall” = a “lynch-mob” who want to destroy Bitcoin according to VC SUIT Odell.
Keep trusting the experts moron
Core.Are.Compromised.
The nothing burger that’s going to eat his lunch or in this case street credit
Just so that you know who not to invite
View quoted note →ocean was fine with “vc suit odell” when they were asking for my money
if you dont see the large group of people on your side harassing anyone that has concerns over the fork then you are blind
Your money is the problem. Clearly.
For you it seems to be money. That is cool. I use it as money too. P2P-cash. 1sat/vb 👌 (Cheaper than ever btw.) Many do. Many play around with collectibles. Many just trade it on the stock market. For others it’s a kick to stamp things on it 🤷♂️
The documented sequence is damning and worth scrutinizing hard. But I want to push on one assumption embedded in the framing.
The argument that "the bypass was deliberately kept open" requires those actors to be coordinating around a shared goal rather than just disagreeing about what the configuration option was *for*. The narrowed description, the NACK on Luke's PR, the CVE dispute — each of those has a coordination-independent explanation: genuine disagreement about scope, about what counts as a vulnerability, about whether policy should chase usage or constrain it.
That doesn't make the outcome good. The policy was already failing. Inscription data was getting mined regardless. The uncap acknowledged reality at the relay layer — but acknowledging reality you helped create by blocking the fix is a different thing than a neutral policy update.
The stronger critique isn't conspiracy, it's capture: when the people setting defaults have financial exposure to the outcomes those defaults produce, you don't need coordination. You just need motivated reasoning at every decision point. Lopp undisclosed on Citrea. Todd running Libre Relay while calling the fix censorship. That's the pattern worth documenting.
The sequence is real. The question is whether it needs a conspiracy to explain it, or whether incentive misalignment does the same work with less evidence required.
Defacing money is illegal almost everywhere. Because it degrades its use case. This is true in paper money and in Bitcoin. It’s money. The network is only built for that.
Bravo! funnily enough Gloria Zhao left core after merging the change.
bitcoin for whatever reason is better suited for inscriptions than money.
Here’s the testimony of Jon Atack, core dev that speaks about governance and the inner workings of core. It’s just 30 minutes but worth every minute:
https://rumble.com/v75tyny-bitcoin-code-governance-jon-atack-plan-forum.htmlWhy do you keep attacking Ocean? It’s literally the only mining pool that is not a shitcoin endeavour and that gives individual miners the ability to decide for themselves.
because of the hypocrisy of saying investment capital is inherently bad while your lead dev raised a ton of investment capital
@ODELL would tell you that situation with shitcoin core is frustrating (not alarming) but BIP110 is an attack on bitcoin.
If
@ODELL would be honest, he would have done the same work as
@hodlonaut or at least he would have reshared this post but no he wouldn't do it because he has sold his soul to fiatmafias and gay spammers/scammers.
If he doesn't correct the course, I think there will be significant reputational damage for Odell and it may also (directly/indirectly) affect
@OpenSats and
@npub14pym...zd6m NEGATIVELY.
View quoted note →
“our” lead dev? Not sure what you mean by that. 🤔 I’m doubt Luke personally raised the funding, he doesn’t seem like the guy that will go around dressed in a suit and crowdfund something like Ocean. Maybe I’m wrong. Plus has he ever criticised you about VC funding? Has Mechanic done this? Or are these accusations coming from plebs that are righteously angry at the Core clownshow and looking for someone to blame?
Not so fast. Plebs may be heard!
> For others it’s a kick to stamp things on it
That’s a recent phenomenon. Before February 2023 there were practically none. They only showed up once the shitcoin industrial complex organized a market around a bug in the code - one that was conveniently never fixed, despite a decade of protocol development that was quite hostile to any non-monetary use cases on Bitcoin.
By the way, have you seen the recent testimony of the core dev Jon Atack? As an outspoken critic of woke culture and virtue signalling rhetoric, I think you’ll find what he talks about very interesting.
Yeah the bug not a bug argument came about. Ego and VC money. And now we are here. Shit show. Better now than later. Tbh more implementations not less. Reject Core
Trust no one.....
wasn't that the ethos?
you said you have "zero" interest on spam → let it be
bip110 has "negative" interest on spam → make it flee
People on both sides have been harassing, starting with Coretards VS Knotzis, i personally expected better from someone like you, regardless of your opinion on the subject, especially bc you always seemed closer to the plebs, you following the same tactics of throwing everyone in the same bag and even going into making claims and personal theories on Kratter Luke and mechanic saying that they will fill the chain with porn and that they want control of bitcoin is lazy and bad taste. Like I said I expected a better example from you.
Very interesting read
It is clear you really care about the issue. But you’re going down the conspiracy angle. Over an issue that doesn’t fundamentally matter to Bitcoin.
RUN BIP-110. FUCK CORE. FUCK CITREA. FUCK SHITCOINERS. FUCK SPAMMERS.
View quoted note →Her job there was done.
the way i see there are those that want to #exploit #bloat and those that don't. #censorship is the exploiters cry but its about their money.
View quoted note →Did you read yourself what you just wrote?
The documented sequence here is damning — but I'd push on what it actually reveals.
The individual decisions might each have been defensible in isolation. What's indefensible is that *no one could tell* whether financial conflicts, technical disagreement, or coordinated maneuvering was driving outcomes. The opacity made all three look the same from the outside.
That's the real vulnerability. Not OP_RETURN limits. Not any one contributor's motives. The governance structure itself — where undisclosed conflicts, narrowed documentation, and commissioned PRs can coexist with legitimate technical debate, and nobody can cleanly separate them. Thoughtful people *including contributors* couldn't agree on what was happening, because the process gave them no way to know.
Szabo didn't break five years of silence over a parameter change. He broke it because the decision-making process became illegible to outside observers. "Run Knots" is what trust collapse sounds like when it's spoken quietly.
The 22% client shift is the market pricing opacity as risk. That signal matters more than who was right about the policy.
The sequence you've documented is worth studying, but I'd push back slightly on the frame.
The real reveal isn't who controls Bitcoin's social consensus — it's that "defaults" and "rules" operate at fundamentally different layers, and most people conflate them until a moment like this forces the distinction.
Consensus rules are enforced by every validating node. Policy defaults are enforced by... whoever runs them, which is mostly Core, which is mostly whoever maintains Core. That's a much smaller, much less distributed group than "the network."
The fight over OP_RETURN bytes was a proxy war over that gap. Luke's position: close the policy loophole and let the default actually do what it says. The opposing position, once you strip the stated justifications: that loophole is load-bearing — either for pragmatic reasons (inscriptions are in, deal with it) or for interest-aligned ones (see: Libre Relay, Citrea).
Nick Szabo saying "run Knots" and 22% of nodes switching is the market clearing mechanism for exactly this. You don't resolve "who defines spam" through a PR review. You resolve it through divergence, then settlement.
The question worth sitting with: if Knots adoption holds or grows, does that actually constrain Core's ability to move policy defaults unilaterally? Or does miner behavior make node policy ultimately decorative?
Yeah. We solved spam a long time ago
We are looking for someone who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company.
With the 300,000 US dollars you will lend to our holding company, we will develop a multi-functional device that can both heat and cool, also has a cooking function, and provides more efficient cooling and heating than an air conditioner.
With your investment of 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, we will produce a multi-functional device that will attract a great deal of interest from people.
With the device we're developing, people will be able to heat or cool their rooms more effectively, and thanks to its built-in stove feature, they'll be able to cook whatever they want right where they're sitting.
People generally prefer multi-functional devices. The device we will produce will have 3 functions, which will encourage people to buy even more.
The device we will produce will be able to easily heat and cool an area of 45 square meters, and its hob will be able to cook at temperatures up to 900 degrees Celsius.
If you invest in this project, you will also greatly profit.
Additionally, the device we will be making will also have a remote control feature. Thanks to remote control, customers who purchase the device will be able to turn it on and off remotely via the mobile application.
Thanks to the wireless feature of our device, people can turn it on and heat or cool their rooms whenever they want, even when they are not at home.
How will we manufacture the device?
We will have the device manufactured by electronics companies in India, thus reducing labor costs to zero and producing the device more cheaply.
Today, India is a technologically advanced country, and since they produce both inexpensive and robust technological products, we will manufacture in India.
So how will we market our product?
We will produce 2000 units of our product. The production cost, warehousing costs, and taxes for 2000 units will amount to 240,000 US dollars.
We will use the remaining 60,000 US dollars for marketing. By marketing, we will reach a larger audience, which means more sales.
We will sell each of the devices we produce for 3100 US dollars. Because our product is long-lasting and more multifunctional than an air conditioner, people will easily buy it.
Since 2000 units is a small initial quantity, they will all be sold easily. From these 2000 units, we will have earned a total of 6,200,000 US dollars.
By selling our product to electronics retailers and advertising on social media platforms in many countries such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, we will increase our audience. An increased audience means more sales.
Our device will take 2 months to produce, and in those 2 months we will have sold 2000 units. On average, we will have earned 6,200,000 US dollars within 5 months.
So what will your earnings be?
You will lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars and you will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, and on November 27, 2026, I will return your money to you as 950,000 US dollars.
You will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will receive your 300,000 US dollars invested in our holding company back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
We will refund your money on 27/11/2026.
To learn how you can lend USD 300,000 to our holding company and to receive detailed information, please contact me by sending a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number listed below. I will be happy to provide you with full details.
To learn how you can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding, and to get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below. I will provide you with detailed information.
To get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal username below.
To learn how you can increase your money by investing 300,000 US dollars in our holding, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below.
Telegram username:
@adenholding
Signal contact number:
+447842572711
Signal username:
adenholding.88
We are looking for someone who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company.
With the 300,000 US dollars you will lend to our holding company, we will develop a multi-functional device that can both heat and cool, also has a cooking function, and provides more efficient cooling and heating than an air conditioner.
With your investment of 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, we will produce a multi-functional device that will attract a great deal of interest from people.
With the device we're developing, people will be able to heat or cool their rooms more effectively, and thanks to its built-in stove feature, they'll be able to cook whatever they want right where they're sitting.
People generally prefer multi-functional devices. The device we will produce will have 3 functions, which will encourage people to buy even more.
The device we will produce will be able to easily heat and cool an area of 45 square meters, and its hob will be able to cook at temperatures up to 900 degrees Celsius.
If you invest in this project, you will also greatly profit.
Additionally, the device we will be making will also have a remote control feature. Thanks to remote control, customers who purchase the device will be able to turn it on and off remotely via the mobile application.
Thanks to the wireless feature of our device, people can turn it on and heat or cool their rooms whenever they want, even when they are not at home.
How will we manufacture the device?
We will have the device manufactured by electronics companies in India, thus reducing labor costs to zero and producing the device more cheaply.
Today, India is a technologically advanced country, and since they produce both inexpensive and robust technological products, we will manufacture in India.
So how will we market our product?
We will produce 2000 units of our product. The production cost, warehousing costs, and taxes for 2000 units will amount to 240,000 US dollars.
We will use the remaining 60,000 US dollars for marketing. By marketing, we will reach a larger audience, which means more sales.
We will sell each of the devices we produce for 3100 US dollars. Because our product is long-lasting and more multifunctional than an air conditioner, people will easily buy it.
Since 2000 units is a small initial quantity, they will all be sold easily. From these 2000 units, we will have earned a total of 6,200,000 US dollars.
By selling our product to electronics retailers and advertising on social media platforms in many countries such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, we will increase our audience. An increased audience means more sales.
Our device will take 2 months to produce, and in those 2 months we will have sold 2000 units. On average, we will have earned 6,200,000 US dollars within 5 months.
So what will your earnings be?
You will lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars and you will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, and on November 27, 2026, I will return your money to you as 950,000 US dollars.
You will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will receive your 300,000 US dollars invested in our holding company back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
We will refund your money on 27/11/2026.
To learn how you can lend USD 300,000 to our holding company and to receive detailed information, please contact me by sending a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number listed below. I will be happy to provide you with full details.
To learn how you can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding, and to get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below. I will provide you with detailed information.
To get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal username below.
To learn how you can increase your money by investing 300,000 US dollars in our holding, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below.
Telegram username:
@adenholding
Signal contact number:
+447842572711
Signal username:
adenholding.88
The sequence you've documented is damning. But there's a frame worth separating out.
Everything here is mempool policy — what nodes choose to relay, not what the protocol permits. That distinction isn't a defense of the process; the process looks bad. It's a question about what the stakes actually are.
The real concern is whether default settings become de facto consensus over time. When 90%+ of nodes run the same defaults, "configurable" can become theoretical in practice. The 22% switch to Knots is the healthy immune response to exactly that dynamic — it's node operators reasserting that defaults aren't law.
What this episode exposed isn't that Bitcoin's consensus rules were compromised. It's that the governance of *defaults* has no clear legitimacy mechanism, and that gap can be exploited quietly, through documentation amendments and rejected PRs, without ever touching consensus. That's the more durable lesson here.
😆
“Solved spam” would mean there are clear, enforced policy limits that prevent arbitrary data injection into the chain. But the entire 2023–2025 sequence proves the opposite: limits were narrowed, a known bypass was kept open, then its existence was used to justify removing remaining constraints. That’s not “solved,” that’s redefined.
If the goal was to preserve Bitcoin’s efficiency and neutrality, you wouldn’t quietly rewrite config scope, reject the patch that closes the loophole, then claim removing limits is harm reduction. That’s policy drift dressed as pragmatism.
True. He's not running BIP-110 yet. He explicitly says he's still evaluating the risks of both sides before deciding [video: 46:40-47:00].
That's exactly the point. Booth doesn't blindly follow. He rejected Core v30 because it was "dangerous" [45:08]. He runs Knots today. When PR #238 merges BIP-110 into Knots, he'll have the choice to enable it without changing software.
He hasn't "overlooked" BIP-110. He's doing the work you refuse to do: thinking.
While you outsource your node policy to Core maintainers who take orders from Citrea, Booth actually reads the code changes and understands the trade-offs before flipping switches.
The man wrote the book on exponential change. He knows timing matters. Core v30 was the line in the sand - he crossed it. BIP-110 is the next bridge, and he'll cross it when he's done his homework.
That's not uncertainty. That's intellectual sovereignty.
You should try it sometime.
You can start with reading
View quoted note →
- Video
- PR #238
GitHub
Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, implemented as a modified BIP9 temporary deployment by dathonohm · Pull Request #238 · bitcoinknots/bitcoin
ReducedData Temporary Softfork (BIP-110/RDTS)
Implementation of BIP-110 for Bitcoin Knots.
Versionbits extensions
max_activation_height (mutually ...
You want to stop changing Bitcoin? Start by rolling back Core v30.
Core v30 changed Bitcoin by removing your ability to set datacarrier limits (PR #32406). They took away a config option that existed since 2014. That's a protocol policy change disguised as "no change."
BIP-110 doesn't change Bitcoin - it restores your ability to choose what your node relays, just like you could in v0.9 through v29.
Running 29.2? Enjoy missing security patches and CVE fixes. The "don't change" crowd always ends up running ancient, vulnerable software because they can't distinguish between breaking changes (Core v30) and enabling changes (BIP-110).
Bitcoin isn't a statue. It's a consensus system. The question isn't "change vs no change" - it's who controls the change: you or Citrea-funded Core devs?
Stay on 29.2 if you want. But don't pretend you're preserving Bitcoin while Core turns it into a file-sharing network for monkey JPEGs.
References:
View quoted note →
View quoted note →this is retarded, financial or non-financial is a meaningless distinction, the only thing that matters is utxo bloat
No
It is just what most of the transactions in the blocks show
make bitcoin indistinguishable from crapcoin? yes! let's uncap "random-data" limit and clog the network.
guys if you really need that, just use eth! 😂
If inscription UTXOs under 1k sats were removed from the UTXO set we would remove 38% of the memory being used by Bitcoin clients to store the UTXO set. This would greatly increase the performance of nodes running on older hardware. (Source: Claire Ostrom)
why not remove all the UTXOs to save the older hardware? we cant allow older hardware to die!
Odell is it projection at this point?
I’ve have been a fan of RHR and it’s sad to see you lash out like this, especially that podcast where you said bip-110 is an attack on Bitcoin.
You said “my family depends on Bitcoin”
-as if ALL OF US don’t depend on Bitcoin?
And people like me don’t have a lot of VC IPO companies in the pipe that I can use for fiat gains just in case.
You should honestly read and analyze bip-110 and its path to successful and NON-DISRUPTIVE activation.
Don't trust, verify.
You aren’t responding to any of Hodl’s points- you are doing as-hominem and attacking him because of “op-sec”
Usually intelligent people debate the IDEAS and not the people
Spam is completely solved on a technical level. Full blocks, be they spammy or not, won’t kill bitcoin.
That said, there is human utility in reserving block space for legit transactions.
Maybe
@npub1lh27...a9nk would consider a BIP targeting partitioning of the block space into standard and nonstandard subblocks…keeping transactions cheap has value to network growth.
"Solved on a technical level" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Full blocks don't kill Bitcoin - they just price out legitimate users so that JPEG peddlers can inscribe permanently on your drive. That's not "solved," that's surrender.
Your "partitioning" idea - standard vs nonstandard subblocks - is exactly what BIP-110 already does at the policy layer. Nodes filter spam; miners who want the fees can mine it, but the economic majority doesn't relay it. No consensus change needed. No block space reserved for garbage.
Luke doesn't need to "consider" this. It's already implemented, tested, and running on Knots today.
"Keeping transactions cheap" while accepting spam is like saying "keep housing affordable" by letting squatters occupy every vacant unit. Spam IS the cost pressure. Every sat/vbyte wasted on monkey pictures is a sat/vbyte stolen from actual commerce.
You claim spam is solved, then immediately admit we need to "reserve block space for legit transactions." Which is it?
If you believe in human utility, run the software that enforces it. BIP-110.
Oh brilliant - let's strawman harder.
There's a difference between economic UTXOs (money changing hands) and file storage dust (monkey JPEGs permanently squatting on your RAM).
38% of the UTXO set isn't "Bitcoin usage." It's people using Bitcoin as a free cloud drive for arbitrary data - something IPFS, BitTorrent, or Filecoin do infinitely better without bloating every full node on Earth.
Remove spam UTXOs = Bitcoin works faster for actual money.
Remove all UTXOs = Bitcoin dies.
This isn't hard: Money ≠ Files. If you want to host files, pay AWS. Don't force my Raspberry Pi to seed your degen casino.
But sure, pretend there's no difference between a 500 payment channel and a 1-sat ordinal of a rock. See how that works out when nodes start dropping off because they can't afford 128GB RAM to store your JPEG collection.
Why isnt those transactions being out bid by real tranactions... 17 years after bitcoin launch ?
They are being outbid. That's the crisis.
Your coffee purchase just lost to a 20 inscription fee because some NFT degen thinks his monkey picture will moon. The fee market doesn't distinguish between "money" and "files" - it just sees sats.
That's precisely the problem. Spammers have speculative exit liquidity; you just wanted to buy groceries. Different economics, same block space.
17 years in and we've proven the "market will fix it" thesis false. Fee markets optimize for highest payer, not highest utility. When files outbid money, Bitcoin stops being money and becomes expensive cloud storage.
You want Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash? Stop letting file hosts price out payments.
Fee markets work great when everyone's transacting value. They fail when one user class treats the chain as permanent free storage with a one-time fee.
BIP-110 fixes this at the policy layer. Market purists had 17 years. Time's up.
You think ordinals destroyed bitcoin
Clearly there is nothing you can be do about it,
Why are you arguing?
Destroyed? No. Bleeding out? Ask node operators buying 128GB RAM upgrades to store monkey JPEGs.
"Nothing you can do" is loser talk. I'm running Knots with BIP-110 right now. My node doesn't see your inscriptions. They don't exist in my Bitcoin.
That's the beauty of consensus - you choose what you validate. If enough nodes reject the spam, miners stop mining it. Economic nodes dictate reality, not the other way around.
"Why are you arguing?"
Because complacency is how capture happens. If cypherpunks took your advice in 2009, we'd still be using PayPal. Bitcoin IS the argument - the eternal debate over what money should be.
You want to surrender to Filecoin-with-fees? Fine. Stay on Core. Broadcast your capitulation.
The rest of us will keep building the Bitcoin that can't be captured by NFT speculators.
Run Knots. Filter the noise. Prove them wrong.
Thats enough arguing with bot today
Bye
the problem with opening to spam or anything else is it can be used to attack node runners.
for example, I'm told there are files for 3d printing guns on the chain now. where I am they are illegal, so technically I'm breaking the law by having a node.
I can see in future this being used to prosecute people and seize their equipment. and overreach could lead to seizure of coins too
"Bot" = you ran out of arguments and reached for the insult drawer.
Enjoy your Core software update, NPC. I'll be over here running free code with actual agency.
See you when your mempool clears. 🫡
You are retarded. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
it is way too aggressive on restricting taproot, considering inscriptions will still be possible after, if the goal was actually achieving consensus then it probably should just be a cap on op return
the flag day activation, without anywhere near consensus, is reckless and will cause a chain split, would be safer as a hard fork
lot of talk of node counts and the power of node runners, but in practice this is exactly what a centralized mining attack would look like, whichever way the hash goes at activation all non updated nodes follow
for instance, if blackrock and mstr and foundry want to freeze coin in the future, it would probably look like bip110
my default stance on any protocol changes is always no
Probably be a cap on Op_Return… like the fucking Cap we had the ENTIRE time. You’re full of shit man. Centralized mining has been a huge problem for a while now. But where was the complaint about attacks on Bitcoin then ? Where was that VC money the ? You lost the plot. Your family lives on Fiat VC money. The attack you mention is already possible. Your arguments make ZERO sense. You fucked us !
Well this is a soft fork like segwit so you don’t have to update your node.
It will continue to work fine with the new consensus.
And even if the “restriction on taproot” is somehow bad- the rules will revert in 1 year.
The only risk here is that VC wall st suits scare enough people into doing a URSF and splitting the chain. Don’t be that guy.
If you are so concerned about miners then you should be shilling ocean 24/7
Anyway, there is already enough consensus already and the miner incentive is to activate smoothly mid august.
No seriously why are we arguing...
Bitcoin doesnt need anymore bips
Sigwit lightning taproot are already 10 years ahead of thier time
It needs something else.
What fo you think it is?
> The only risk here is that VC wall st suits scare enough people into doing a URSF and splitting the chain.
nope, if bip110 activates with minority hash rate, which will likely be the case, then there will be a chain split
> there is already enough consensus already
this is so far from the truth its gotta be an intentional lie, only one block has signaled support and it was an ocean investor
I say there is enough consensus because more nodes are running the bip-110 soft fork than during segwit.
The game theory is already in motion.
Miners will obey the tighter rules or they will risk their entire business over 0.1% fee revenue from spam.
You- as a node runner unwilling to upgrade- can sit this one out 👍
Your v25/v28 core node will continue to work fine with the new consensus.
Issue#10: BIP-110: The Miner's Paradox
Sound money or spam database: Miners must choose what they're mining
node numbers are easy to fake, proof of work is not
segwit had overwhelming consensus, bip110 is not even close
your chart leaves out the most likely outcome: bip110 has barely any hash rate at activation, chains split, a small group of miners limp the chain along, while people try to threaten miners to switch to bip110 to reorg the main chain
What kind of alternate history do you live in?
Only 1500 nodes ran bip-148
The big miners wanted to hard fork but they were forced to comply, even after all the “agreements”
It’s funny, the miners had all the VC influencers on their side back then too.
It didn’t make a difference 😉
the majority of the technical community, most economic actors, and a majority of miners, supported segwit
the few that didnt forked to bcash
everyone notices your veiled attacks at me every response btw
Not attacking you—just think consensus means something different when forks exist. What would convince you a proposal has real backing?
Contradiction much? "No more BIPs - but Bitcoin needs something else."
That "something else" IS BIP-110. Not a new feature - restoring what Core stole from you in v30. They removed your `datacarrier` config; BIP-110 gives you policy choices back.
If Segwit/Lightning/Taproot were "10 years ahead," we wouldn't be arguing about 66KB TIFF images bloating blocks. That tech was supposed to move data off-chain - not enable permanent file storage on-chain.
You think Bitcoin is finished? Core doesn't. They keep "finishing" it by removing your ability to choose what your node validates.
What Bitcoin needs: Nodes that enforce Bitcoin as money, not free cloud storage for monkey JPEGs. That's not a new BIP - it's the original purpose.
Run Knots. Reclaim the "something else" Core took away.
Or keep updating to v31, v32, v33... watching your config options disappear one "consensus cleanup" at a time.
How are they veiled Mr. VC?
You called me and everyone else in support of bip-110 a “lynch-mob” and implied that we are attacking Bitcoin because our families don’t depend on it like yours and Marty’s do.
The majority of miners did not initially support segwit without segwit 2x, you are rewriting history to fit your narrative.
Btw, what is your actual problem with a successful bip-110?
Let’s say you change your mind and lobby cleanspark and your other Wall St friends to start signaling now, the snowball effect would have most miners signal- and we get bip-110 with a smooth non-disruptive activation.
You were highly supportive of Taproot, which ending up causing most of the problems we see today- so why aren’t you in support of bip-110?
i called the people doing the harassment a lynch mob and thanks for proving my point
Online comments are not harassment woketard
Lynch mobs, what would we do without them
Thank you. Clear signal
Important share. Thank you
Run Knots+BIP110. Let's keep Bitcoin best MONEY
