Replies (79)
Those scenarios are the reason why I still hold gold
I see your concern regarding miners switching after activation. But what is your concern about bip 110?
Well, it was created by cypherpunks...
They claim the plebs own it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
This is a man who wore a hazmat suit to Bitcoin 2021 and lost 200 bitcoin… he does not seem to have a firm grasp on threat models
Would be so much easy to not deploy v30. But here we are, its all yours.
This reeks of desperation.
Do you really not understand why it's good to fix exploits and loopholes that attract spammers? Or why its important for node runners to run code that aligns with their values?
You will find yourself outnumbered. It is so odd seeing you try to find a way right down the middle of this debate.
So many core supporters told the rest of us to fork off. Now it seems like some of the people on the core side are regretting saying that. Why are you so nervous?
Are people allowed to fork off or should we just do what you and your friends say?
Get them forked off so they can claim like the Bsvers they are the real Bitcoin 🤦♂️
At least Luke agrees that there is no debate 🫠
a hard fork would be a very clean safe way to handle this but bip110 is not that
the goal is to reorg thousands of transactions if yall dont get your way
and your dear leader is calling anyone with concerns a pedo so spare me the lecture on desperation
Where is the evidence of the goal to reorg thousands of transactions? Who said this?
No one is my dear leader. I think BIP110 has flaws. I think the chances of success would be higher if it was a smaller number of changes
I did not lecture. I wrote 8 sentences.
That doesn’t explain what bip110 actually does and how it’s a threat/attack.
How/why does it reverse transaction?
You guys need to do some sort of deep dive video explaining your side with some actual facts.
8 condescending sentences.
People can see your replies as well protozoan
Yes you told me before and I don't give a fuck. Remember I have audacity.
And I'm simply pointing out why he said to spare him the lecture. Nothing to do with me.
🤣
Core started this! with their reckless OP_RETURN policy. This is on core.
Yeah, I really don't see it like that. I think the decision of completely disallowing users to choose if they want or not to cap the OP_RETURN was not a good move by Core and Knots is better for allowing choice but:
This, on the other hand, is something else.
The risk argument is weak here. If and ONLY if there's a move by governments because of anything that is on the Bitcoin chain, THEN we should move there. Not now.
This is a weak move otherwise. Bitcoin doesn't need this right now.
This post was originally about Kratter then asking about how BIP110 was an attack. Luke calling people names has zero to do with me. It's confusing how someone thinks that I or anyone else would 100% support everything another individual does.
I do agree with Odell that this fork does seem to be messy and I have no idea how it will turn out. But it should be a solid test for the network. We will find out soon enough.
The OP_RETURN value is a user configurable setting, that has not changed. Noderunners are still free to set it at the old limit or even at 0
The reorg window is the part that should terrify people. Every day between activation and miner switchover, every transaction on the main chain becomes a hostage. Consensus isn't a feature you ship and patch later.
This is compelling. Making me rethink my running bip110.
One thing that's refreshing: this note is talking about the problem rather than questioning the intention of the people. If living under a government has taught us anything it's that intentions rarely match outcomes.
So it's nice that this note only talks about the problem without impugning the people.
View quoted note →> Where is the evidence of the goal to reorg thousands of transactions? Who said this?
it is how the fork is designed and how luke talks about it
A hard fork would be forking off. This fake emergency bullshit smells so hard of fed it glows.
Thank you. I should have been more chill. Im running on fumes and still need my coffee. I really only get bitcoin news here and there on nostr. So I guess I did not see these posts from him. I will dig more into this.
A fork that activates right away does seem to be more preferable.
Also sorry to hear he accused you of that. I think people are making things too black and white and people on both sides are mischaracterizing each other.
Either way I'm hoping we at least agree people should run what they want in terms of Bitcoin code.
Hard to know what is true and what is not. When lots of people have their net worth tied up in bitcoin they are sensitive to any changes or perceived attack vectors. I actually do feel like I understand to a certsin degree both sides. I am much more on the side of patch anything that is allowing people to spam the network to mitigate the damage early.
Hopefully I’ll mine a block on the BIP 110 chain!
Please show your work.
A video of a full breakdown of the code and exactly what it does, in neutral terms, without any of the ideological spin.
All this abstraction and commentary is just noise at this point.
But it will only reverse "invalid" (relative to BIP-110 consensus rules) tx, most likely spam, not normal tx, correct ?
the chain split scenario is the part people keep glossing over. if miners don't switch immediately, every tx on the main chain between activation and switch becomes collateral damage. that's not a soft fork — that's a hostage situation.
Its called a shit test. Many are willing to fork the chain over spam. Maybe this is a message to core to get their act together rather than sucking off spammers and bending over to VCs while pleading "there is nothing we can do, we are powerless to spam". It's quite gross.
Sure that feeling is generally understood. The issue is that 110 closes the front gate but opens a window into your bedroom.
Currently spam grows the chain but the chains maximum growth if all the blocks are at their practical maximum block size is around105gigs a year. Much of this is prunable. Under a 110 regime the practical maximum growth is 84gigs. The only way to get a 4mb block is to make very large transactions of pure witness data or throw it all into op return. While possible it just doesn’t happen. So realistically 110 saves you 21gigs of disk space a year.
In a 110 world where Luke is right and spammers see the virtue signal as a law and leave we would see the chain only being used for what god and Luke intended and indeed growth of the utxo would reduce. Of course this is because over all monetary use of the chain is minimal.
If however Luke is wrong and spammers simply switch methods to less utxo efficient means(hint they will), the pleb nodes with 16gigs of ram will be unable to function a year from activation. Ironic that the retarded JPEGs make a utxo spam attack extremely expensive and nearly impossible to sustain.
Spam is not an emergency, and even if you think it is the 110 cure is worse than the malady. The only thing 110 makes possible is a fed attack on the utxo set to remove pleb nodes and bring bitcoin under kyc control. Luke gets his Christian nationalist money and the Feds close the last off ramp to freedom.
No
No, that is not what will happen. All mined blocks become invalid. So all transactions in them become unmined. Unless they happen to be mined in the other chain too.
Perfect time for a a large double spend...
Even considering an approach that might cause a reorg is hostile to bitcoin and bitcoiners.
Good this is exactly what I want because it must be done.
Weak answer. Your so smart but that’s all you got ?
So better for miners to switch sooner rather than later in order to avoid chain split.
Also if minority hash on BIP-110, fees on that chain are going to skyrocket due to slowly generating blocks so mining on it could actually become more profitable than mining on legacy chain. If hashrate migrates to BIP-110 chain due to higher profitability, price of that coin could continue to rise together with block rewards, creating positive feedback loop.
This was enlightening for me, thank you. I'm not technical, so forgive me if I ask something dumb, but what stops a government from spamming the UTXO set right now and kicking plebs out?
Like most geniuses Luke is smart in some ways and VERY VERY STUPID in many others.
Theoretically nothing, but practically it is because there is demand for block space from “non monetary transactions. “ Witness data outbids the utxo spammers. Under a bip110 a nation state could spend around 160 million and make 16gb nodes wrecked in 6 months.
Actual lunatics in the comments who seriously want a chain split. wtf are you guys thinking??
Thanks, you've given me place to start researching, because there are a few things that are not clear to me. Like when you mention "non monetary transactions" in a block. What does that exactly entail? Because from what I understood in your post, these transactions are keeping the UTXO spammers at bay by outbidding them. I know governments have access to the money printer, so I understand the theoretical point as to why this wouldn't stop them.
Also, some argue that spam is subjective, I personally don't think that's entirely the case, I think there are things that are clearly spam to the majority of people. But anyways, at least to a knots supporter, would your statement read to them as "spam is keeping UTXO spam at bay"?
Not sure how blackrock will choose the blockchain for their ETFs. I assume they not choose CSAM blockchain of core30 due to regulatory and image pressure.
You mean if the majority of the network literally goes back tens of thousands of blocks and has enough hash power to not only get back to the same place but surpass current hash power? What faith you must have in BIP 110 being THAT compelling!
A "chain split" is not possible here. You can only have a dead soft fork or BIP 110 conpliance. Also, this is literally always possible by miners but nodes keep them from changing the rules (by validating their work.)
It’s not just cost, it is time. Nodes will eventually need 32gigs of ram. The question is does that happen in 2 years or 10? A determined attacker today would be competing with a lot of people for block space and so they wouldn’t be able to fill every block with lots of utxos, some blocks would be full of large data blobs and few utxos.
In 10 years a low end laptop will have 32gigs of ram so no one will care. In 2 years a 32 gig machine is likely a server grade set up.
That's not how that works. Nothing gets "unmined" The scenario ODELL is trying to describe is if no one supports BIP110 that chain stops because of so many invalid transactions on the main chain then miners switch completely to BIP110 and mine literally tens of thousands of blocks faster than everyone else can mine a single block on the main chain.
I hope I don't have to describe how improbable that outcome is.
You are talking about miners switching over and mining tens of thousands of blocks faster than the main chain can mine one. I find this to be either highly unlikely or a fear tactic.
Notice how he never uses the term “soft fork”
There are only two reasons:
One - he is being disingenuous - he does not want the average person to understand the difference between hard and soft forks.
Or two - He does not even know the difference himself…
They use confusion and deceit to make their “side” look stronger but in bitcoin there are no sides.
In a soft fork - if the terms are met, BIP 110 becomes the new protocol (which is a return to a spam free and a money only system Satoshi had originally gave us)
If the conditions are not met - the Knots Bip 110 runners were wrong.
This is how consensus works.
No one is trying to “split” bitcoin. It is dissonance to control narratives and use donor funds from a pedophile ring to alter bitcoin like Adam Back. Don’t let them confuse you into thinking BIP 110 is the problem.
Those who use Bitcoin for fiat money, for corporate games, or as an “investment fund” are the real problem. They think they are the saviors of it, but they are themselves, a social attack vector (made evident through the release Epstein files released)
It is peer to peer electronic cash - no donors or think tanks needed.
#bip110 #core #knots
View quoted note →The BIP 110 is NOT designed that way and you are completely dishonest.
BIP 110 is designed to reduce spam on Bitcoin (which it will achive well if successful) and this is one of 4 scenarios. 4.
Issue#10: BIP-110: The Miner's Paradox
Sound money or spam database: Miners must choose what they're mining
You need to come clean once in for all: v30 is a direct attack on pleb nodes (BW, HW, legal liability) to kill descentralization and get few homologued nodes runs by your friend Andy and others Epstein buddys. Node runners ain't so stupid (I hope)
That's bs. CAT does that not BIP110.
☝️Thanks for your insights🔥🔥🔥,
Now I understand it more (deeper level🙂)
@ihsotas
I'm also not technical😁
(*) Why want Luke to change it?
(*) Is it because someone or some group are using blackmail to force him?
(*) (Or is he getting money when he can change it/selfish reasons)
☝️🔥🔥🔥👌
😤😤😤
appreciate you, Odell 🙏
I wish we could all see some good faith adjustments from Core. I don't know enough to even know what that might look like, but it would go a long way to calm things down. From the perspective of many of us, v30 was handled so badly that it's hard not to attribute bad motives to it.
How long did it take before it became obvious who won the blocksize war?
Why course correct when v29 is there and can picked up and worked upon from this point?
I think you’re over estimating them a bit. There’s no chance a big miner will throw away weeks or days of revenue to switch to their dead chain. More likely it will just get no blocks at all and they will plan their next fork because these attention whore losers want more attention
Much better this way. Makes the retards who are afraid of data rage quit
starting to sound like a hard fork might be the safer option.
would be way safer
but they want control
if you express concerns then they call you a pedo, insane
A hard fork would give total control, so it doesn’t seem like that is their main focus. Does it?
Did you deny being a pedo? jk jk jk, I shouldn’t be funny with this. It’s not a funny topic and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly.
Someone has to save Bitcoin.
#bitcoin
#savebitcoin
#runknots
#runbip110
it feels too organized and uses too many well defined “bad jacketing” psychological warfare techniques for me to believe its just a rag tag group of “true believers” behind it.
The hardest money wins. #Bip110 makes #Bitcoin a pure monetary network, corrects some of the mistakes of the past and sends a signal that the decentralized immune system works. Pretty powerful.
Bitcoin LV 😅💩
Yea I'm gonna be running v29 for a while until this mess becomes clearer in retrospect.
Part of the calculus for miners when considering switching to Bitcoin Luke’s Vision (BLV), which they might if fees are higher over there due to transactions finding it harder to get included because of lack of miners, is the cost of turmoil and disruption on the Bitcoin market. Degradation of confidence could be devastating for hard-earned institutional buy-in. I highly doubt that anywhere close to half of the network will be interested in the latest narcissist-lead, fear-driven, fringe-group fork. May BLV be shorter lived than BSV.
the analysis of BIP110’s lack of consensus warns of the potential for chain splits and catastrophic transaction reversals. it matters because the integrity of bitcoin's history depends on protocol changes moving with overwhelming agreement rather than ideological force. credit to the observer for highlighting the technical and social risks of this proposed fork.
ODELL
since bip110 has nowhere near consensus it will result in a chain split when they activate
the main chain will have blocks mined significantly faster than the bip110 chain
if miners switch to bip110 days, weeks, months after activation it will reverse every bitcoin transaction that happened on the main chain during that period
considering luke calls everyone that doesnt support his fork a pedo, the tactic he will use to try to get miners to switch seems obvious
View quoted note →
This is a non-answer to the question.
You didn’t explain what was the attack vector. All you said is Luke is calling people pedos and forcing them to upgrade. And even this is not true.
Luke's face is what I think a pedo looks like when their face is uncovered by Scooby Doo and Mystery Inc... Listen I don't follow you as closely as I used to Matt... BUT I HAVE NEVER IN MY FUCKIN LIFE EVER SEEN YOU AND MARTY ACT IN A BULLSHIT WAY.... That's all I know from up here in Kanukistan - Doesn't make me right, but I'm ride or die with both of you until you kill me
The whole thing is too political now. Imma just stack sats. Another 5% discount today
Maybe, the problem with Matt is underestimate, and in some way insulting, the intelligence of a node runner.
Shouting “coin confiscation” and “chain split/reorganization” is FUD. BIP110 only targets transactions that exploit the protocol turning it into arbitrary non-monetary storage.
In case of a reorganisation it would only reverse transactions that were used exploits to introduce spam.
A bomb sniffing dog is only dangerous to you if you’re carrying a bomb.
You start the post saying that BIP110 has nowhere near consensus, then continue to raise FUD of what could happen if the miners switch to it… so what is it? Is it too weak to do any useful change… or so dangerous that it will break havoc? You cannot have both.
Bitcoin either maintains censorship resistance, or it doesn’t.
You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Bitcoin cannot be a little bit neutral. It is our money, AND the money of our adversaries.
BIP110 is stupid. Its supporters are very stupid, and they are “here to fix spam.” Think about how big a person’s ego must be in order for them to believe they know how to roll back the chain and pick an alternate outcome based on a censorship campaign they created.
V29 does not erase or prevent the damage
v30 is doing.
Bip110 does!
Reversing data carrier size change down to 83-250 bytes is still an option
I'm going to do a spaces on twitter later. When are you free
