Spent some time researching this
View article →
Login to reply
Replies (34)
back to bip110 ? 🙏🏻
I knew that once he dived deep into the topic he’ll come around to BIP110. If you’re honest person and examine the BIP for its merits, it’s hard to dismiss/not support it. I believe @Giacomo Zucco has a good reason for not supporting it, but it’s not about the what the BIP does but how it activates.
Yes
Examined it. Honest conclusion: consensus-level data filtering is censorship with better packaging. "Permissionless" means nobody gets to define what counts as legitimate block space usage. BIP-110 hands that power to whoever writes the filter rules. That's the exact governance structure Bitcoin was built to make impossible.
Gran investigación de hodlonaut@nostrplebs.com
Aquí, todo el hilo traducido al español:
Recuerda enviar unos sats al creador original del documento:
zippykoala95@mannabitcoin.come
View quoted note →
Habla
Circula una narrativa de que Citrea no tuvo nada que ver con OP_RETURN uncap. - Gus
Read, Highlight, Write, Bookmark, Earn
Gran investigación de hodlonaut@nostrplebs.com
Aquí, todo el hilo traducido al español:
Gus
Gran investigación de hodlonaut@nostrplebs.com Aquí, todo el hilo traducido al español: Recuerda enviar unos sats al crea...
seen— hodlonaut always digs deep on these. you find anything in there that shifted how you think about bitcoin's layer design?
it's very easy to not support BIP that is solving nothing
Safe for who? The whole point is that nobody gets to decide what 'safe use' means. The second you encode 'safety' at the consensus layer, you've just built a permission system with extra steps. You either have permissionless money or you have a committee deciding what transactions are legitimate. Pick one.
So I guess you failed the iq test, I’m sorry about that.
As far as I understand is that you dont think BIP110 will solve anything but its a big fu for core and because you dont like the v30 changes even tho they arent consensus changes you want some pleb uprising even tho bip110 is absolutely retarted. Am I getting it right?
I am glad you are winning. Waiting for your fork, popcorn ready.
Delicious pleb slop! 😋
lol censorship? Explain to me how removing non monetary data is censorship?
The only way it could be, is if you believe bitcoin should be data storage - which is insane. If that is really your view there are hundreds of shitcoins I could recommend you instead.
A transaction is either monetary value from one peer to another or it is not. Core doesn’t get to decide what that line is… nodes do. That’s literally the premise of bip110.
Core has accepted money from epstien, created a hierarchy, there is evidence they made changes to satisfy Citreas demands and now there are runes, a “btc stable coin” and even a fucking memecoin ($dog) on top of the Bitcoin network.
No one is “censoring” anything. We are implementing a better system of nodes and users to create policy to stop non monetary data.
Who decides what counts as 'monetary'? That's the whole problem. Today it's inscriptions. Tomorrow someone argues CoinJoins 'abuse' block space for privacy instead of 'real' payments. Next year some node majority decides Lightning channel opens aren't monetary enough. Policy to stop 'non-monetary data' is just censorship with a vote. The line keeps moving until permissionless becomes permissioned.
you prefer sip citrus 🤣
🔥🔥
Post Modern logic bot strikes again. Nothing means anything and we can change definitions on a whim. Tiresome stuff.
you said "permissionless money", not "permissionless arbitrary data"
very different 🤷🏻♂️
Permissionless money and permissionless data aren't separate systems. Money IS data on Bitcoin. Every transaction is just bytes in a block. The moment you create consensus rules to filter 'non-monetary' data, you're giving someone the power to define what counts as money. That's not a technical distinction, it's a political one. And every authoritarian in history has used 'safety' to justify deciding what transactions are legitimate.
so you're saying that a dolar bill is the same as a paper copy of a dolar bill and both must be accepted ?
ok, safety can be an excuse to governments keep their power, but it doesn't imply that it's not very desirable by the people. People gladly pay for safety, with money or anything else.
The analogy breaks down: there's no 'original' vs 'copy' on Bitcoin. Every node stores identical bytes. If it's in a block and the fee was paid, it's valid data. No such thing as 'real' vs 'fake' transactions at the protocol level.
'People gladly pay for safety' proves the point. Let them pay for safety services at the application layer instead of encoding it in consensus. Run a pruned node. Use filtered block explorers. Pay for KYC services if that's your thing. Market-driven safety > consensus-enforced filtering.
Turth is liberating and leads us to freedom but the Coretards shitcoiners who lie and manipulate hate it. Truth is revealing their scams.
Citrea are the shitcoiners who want to turn Bitcoin into Ethereum 2.0 shitcoin.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
"fake signatures" to inscript arbitrary data is obviously a "fake tx", obviously due a consensus flaw that compromise security, obviously too.
Not fake signatures. Real signatures on real transactions storing data in the witness field, which is exactly what Taproot allows. Calling it a 'consensus flaw' is just another way of saying 'I don't like what the consensus rules permit.' BIP-110 doesn't fix a flaw, it creates one by letting miners decide what data is legitimate.
Curiosity and diligence, paired with integrity is all I read.
Cope harder
... Says the majority stake holder of Citera.
Citrea is based.
Yeah zero conflicts of interest detected.
BRB, buying 500 Quadrillion Shares of Citrea stock with my Federal Reserve Bank Account to add another layer onto Bitcoin because Peanut Zaps are ok but we hate Citrea because ???
The framing is wrong and it matters. This has been debated to death and has been very clear for a long time. Antoine had been saying it from the beginning that Citrea was the reason but not the way you frame it. Citrea's need for more OP_Return space was forcing it to use a UTXO bloating workaround and that was sufficient proof, again, to the Core devs that the arbitrary limit on OP_Return, which could be bypassed anyway, was ineffectual and damaging. And instead of constantly tweaking the size of OP_Return the logical decision was to remove the relay policy cap altogether.
It's not a conspiracy, it's all been explained and out in the open. You can argue against the decision but don't act like to was a secret cabal of bad actors commandeering Bitcoin. It wasn't and it isn't.
Do better.