also this ... View quoted note → View quoted note →

Seems lame… we should just Segwit lol

Nhaa I think its a non starter. Don't see real support for it. Either way I will do nothing and observe. Doing nothing is the safe default in a fork soft or hard. You will have coins on both chains and can dump the loser, or call it quits and leave bitcoin altogether if you don't like where its going.

In 2017, the UASF was a gun pointed at the miners' heads by the entire economy. In 2026, BIP-110 is a gun pointed at your own foot while the economy ignores you.

the fact that this is common dialogue on twitter and rarely spoken about on nostr tells me all I need to know

Do it

No Bitcoin users had the foresight AND conviction to loudly call bullshit over Spam Vulnerabilities introduced by SegWit and Taproot. Today, many Bitcoin users have the hindsight AND conviction to loudly call bullshit on the Spam Vulnerabilities. We need to activate BIP-110 ASAP to mitigate obvious spam vulnerabilities from SegWit, Taproot, and Core v.30 Then Bitcoin users need to study The Cat and The Lynx. Filters up.🛡️

You don’t see “real support” for it because you’ve got blinders on. Spam Mitigation is compatible with Bitcoin’s Sound Money Mission (see block size limit of 2010) Spam Facilitation (Core v.30’s approach) is incompatible with Bitcoin’s Sound Money Mission.

BIP110 (aka BIP444) is the last chance to save monetary property of the bitcoin and to save bitcoin from spammers, simpfluencer industrial complex and shitcoin core devs. Fight this battle like your life depends on it.

FAFO

Or. . .the inverse, let's do nothing and don't send a message to core that these changes are ok. Make your own choice. But of course....nodes don't matter 🤪

I will not run it. A single guy wakes up one morning and says " I'm going to change Bitcoin myself. Let's code something !". Where are the code reviews ? Where are the RC ? What a joke of a consensus change process !!!

It won’t stop spam but it does send a message that Bitcoin can be modified by a minority based around a dubious legal theory and an over blown issue. The people pushing for 110 are not being honest. They won’t even put any money in support of the change. They are free riding on the BIP process and are cowards. The idea of a temporary fix makes this sound like it’s an emergency. It’s not. I will not run it.

It really won’t do any of that. It will simply push more of the spam onto the non prunable part. Fake key data injections have been around forever and this bip won’t stop them.

You’re more likely to get a sensible explanation from AI than from people reacting emotionally on social media. I asked Gemini to go through all the BIPs to get a big-picture view of Bitcoin’s development history. Then I asked it to specifically explain BIP-110—its pros and cons, the criticisms, and who would benefit from it, etc. At the moment, I still haven’t changed my mind, and I’m still running a Knots node via Tor.

Sounds cool, but not sure it’s a very accurate analogy

OK here is another good one from @k00b >"it's a I don't like how this is going so I'm going to burn a cross in your front yard kind of soft fork." Source from Stacker News:

Stacker News

reply on: BIP-110 \ stacker news

No because it's a I don't like how this is going so I'm going to burn a cross in your front yard kind of soft fork. [7 comments]

I would prefer handling this with policy rules like the op_return filter. There is a need for both protocol consensus and policy. The former is fortunately almost impossible to change so we need the latter for flexible guidelines that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances. That being said I think 110 is a noble effort to check the out of control hubris and group think happening within Core and deserves support.

Agreed

I was running knots since 2022 exactly because I can filter out inscriptions spam from my mempool. It made no sense to me why Bitcoin Core didn't have that same option, it was a no brainer. Now that there's a BIP that prevents that crap from even reaching the mempool, and fixes things on consensus level, I'm definitely supporting it. I was calling out for a hard fork even before Bitcoin core version 30 was released, we're moving slow but I understand and appreciate why. Really appreciate your help in garnering support for this BIP, and hope you also look at the CAT BIP. 110 prevents future spam, CAT fixes prior spam by prying it from the Utxo set, no more dust utxos.