Adam Back @adam3us On the filter fork topic. I don't usually have time, but this morning listened to one of the twitter spaces from earlier in the week, with some well meaning relative bitcoin newcomers, that humanized them, and their concerns and thoughts for why they thought that made it logical to support 110. My feeling after listening, is if these are the people with #110 in their handles, I'm sad to see them about to fork off and get disillusioned without understanding why bitcoin rejected 110 robustly. So here's a more empathetic, constructive higher level version of explaining why not. I hope it's high-level and first-principles enough that everyone can follow. They seem to want to understand what makes people tick, and are suspicious of intent. So, if someone asked me why is Bitcoin important and what is it, I'd say my (personal) mission and hope for bitcoin is to build the cypherpunk future, that "Snow Crash" was a blueprint, and work backwards from there. Bitcoin I hope leads to fully free markets via bearer unseizable, hard mathematically dependable money. Not everyone is comfortable with that level of freedom, but that's my view. And at this point, I believe that surprisingly, even now many governments have come to understand and value bitcoin's gold-like mathematical assurance, a positive development. Others may have milder views than myself, but still like hard censorship resistant money. Because of motive suspicion, if it's not obvious: I hate spam with a passion, that's how I came to design hashcash while researching decentralized bearer money with others, and running nodes in privacy related cypherpunk p2p networks nearly three decades ago. People seem upset about the default op return policy change in bitcoin. I will just assert, there are extremely robust and simple reasons for bitcoin changing default relay policy, and most just didn't do their research, so don't know what those are, or maybe not technical enough to fully understand though there have been 1000s of posts trying to explain in various simplified ways. So that lack of understanding lends itself to shared build-up of false narratives. So here's my back-to-basics higher level explanation. The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications a: side effect of decentralization is that you can't impose your views on others. The very decentralization mechanism that helps that, is working against what BIP 110 wants, which at it's most basic is a quest to police other people. I understand supporters don't see their intent like that, but introspect deeper. You can modify your software, but not anyone else's. Another critical and incredibly robust technical bitcoin immune system is bitcoin can't have people who don't understand technology basics insist on eroding security, decentralization robustness and core properties. That would end badly, fast, and so people will fight you on that. So the message is Bitcoin respectfully says "no" to what you want. Sorry, and bitcoiners do genuinely understand and empathize that you mean well, have high level thoughts that make emotional sense, and articulate sensible bitcoin-defensive high level ideas, but they are not grounded and without you seeing it, the way you propose to achieve your ideas, hard-conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money. My advice is to listen to more experienced people who understand the system and why it works the way it does, to whatever detail you want to understand the grounded reasons for why this is the implication of decentralization and cypherpunk money. I guarantee you the developer and protocol ecosystem shares and exceeds your views on bearer hard money (and dislike of spam). You may not agree with individual developers choices, views, way of expressing themselves etc, BUT you also need to understand the IETF-like decentralized technical consensus process creates a protective change resistance, that is highly effective at protecting bitcoin mission. The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus. And the many highly technical mainline developers' cypherpunk mission mindsets are probably far more determined than you can even handle on clarity of understanding and views about freedoms on permissionless networks, as many of you are probably still subconsciously inured by the matrix, where they have transcended that, and grew up immersed in it decades ago. They think natively in this space, while you are just grappling with the surface. Many wont have internalized or have the experience to know how this internet physics works, where there is no policeman, no policy authority, just mathematics, free market and hard money. That has implications for your views also, unfortunately. Now the tough pill, which is unfortunately true: If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But bitcoin won't be joining it. (With respect and no sleight intended.) Please rejoin bitcoin now, or later if you're not convinced and need to experience 110 forking off and fizzling for yourself to start that journey of introspecting and learning. It would be sad if bitcoin lost people disillusioned due to simple lack of understanding of what's going on there, we're all trying to defend bitcoin and keep it on mission. Including btw the 110 technical promoters, just they wandered off plot somehow. Join the cypherpunks on bitcoin, come cypherpunk summer🌞 in a few weeks.

This is just a statement of his ideology. There’s no technical explanations here about why BIP-110 won’t work though. Just more ad hominem: •”You’re too stupid to understand Core’s decision or even how the network operates.” •”Trust the experts.” •”You can’t even begin to understand their decisions, so we won’t explain.” And why should I put any trust in Adam again? Most recent Back Controversy: “A convicted fraudster, Christopher Cook, secretly controls billions in investor funds at Blockstream. The money, some of it raised on the promise of 20% interest, circulates among a ring of related parties, and there's no proof the Bitcoin owed to investors actually exists or can be repaid. Adam Back has refused to answer investors' pointed questions about fraud and Bitcoin custody, and has helped conceal the scale of Cook's wealth from Blockstream's own employees. The behind-the-scenes story of why Adam Back's SPAC just collapsed.” Source:

Adam Back Hid a Convicted Felon's Control of Billions, and It Sank His SPAC, Plus Greg Maxwell's Role

Adam Back won't answer questions about a convicted felon, the missing Bitcoin, or the 20% yields promised to investors. Behind the scenes look at w...

Knotzi are like lemmings jumping off a cliff. Explain why it's a bad idea a million ways from Sunday but they are determined to send it. Glad Bitcoin is based on reality, truth and physics. Not much longer before your reality check, good riddance. 🙏

...Then after the fork flop we can get back to things that actually matter, like saylor being a spook, free samurai, and dac8. Real issues, not ginned up nonsense taking up all the oxygen.

Bros, just big mad his spac went splat!

If Bitcoin can’t be killed from the outside, perhaps coercing/bribing the group responsible for the major node implementation would be a more effective means of killing it. I just want to hear the genius developers defend their decisions. Instead, I just hear how BIP-110 is dead before it even started from shitcoiners like Lopp who obviously are profiting off of the new changes Core has implemented. Changes made without any consensus whatsoever, I might add. I find it odd that you stand in allegiance with fed Saylor on this. I’d love to know what makes you feel so strongly.

Verifying your browser…

It's been explained a million and one times before, and if your not hearing by now then you probably ain't going to hear it now but here we go again for old times sake. Op return limit was raised because people who wanted to mine large op return were sending their txs directly to the miners (like mara's slipstream). This was creating a problem because as knots morons like to parrot the line that nodes matter, well this was causing a problem because the mempool was not matching the actual blocks mined. Raising the op return limit acknowledged the unfortunate reality that you cannot stop "spammers" from sending their txs direct to the miners and reconcile d the mempool (which is what you node verifies) and the mempool. In fact, this problematic dynamic was creating an extra income source for the large mining pools (OOB txs) at the expense of the small pools and solo miners. So raising op return removes a centralizing dynamic in Bitcoin mining. Do you understand this? It's really at the heart of the whole matter. Fast forward the knots crew knew they were going to do this. And the planted the seeds of an endless fire hose of fud which is 100% grade A fear mongering bullshit. Sounds fine but it's all hot air. It's a wack a mole argument of disk space bloat, fee market going out of control, shitcoins on Bitcoin, dev capture, and when all else fails an appeal to child porn argument (and there's more I can't rember rn). All of these things fall apart under basic inspection but, not to fear the knotzos have mastered the art of the instapivot and move on the next stupid talking point. And on and on and on and on and on, and it never ends. Turning the whole thing in to some rambling strawman appeal to emotion. And I'll take a moment to acknowledge the fact that core is human beings. They are not perfect but they are damn good at their jobs, it's an open source project and you yourself can dig into the code and offer to build on it. Core is no monolith but the devs I'm familiar with are brilliant people who love Bitcoin. Are they perfect? Hell no! They have flaws for sure but it's upsetting to see them getting dragged nonstop by people who haven't done shit for Bitcoin. Knotzos worship the bad faith actors and like a bunch of lemmings turned their vitriol against the people who built and shipped Bitcoin core v 1-30. What have you done for me lately amiright? The only reason knots works is because the work that core built, they just took it, added some enshitification features and convinced the lynch mob they are the saviors. It's laughably pathetic and sad. As far as sailor being a spook we'll just look at the company he keeps and the fact that he never shows proof of reserves The fact that he seems to be coming out against knots means nothing. There is a thing called nuance, there is also a thing called misinformation, there is also a thing called disinformation. Just because a controlled op says something does not mean you gotta be for it nor against it. His words are meaningless . The Truth is that miners get to decide this bip or lack thereof. I've noticed the framing is now starting to turn the knotzi shit for brain army against the miners rn. Priming the pump, buts that's none of my business. The miners understand the things I'm telling you RN so 110 is not going to happen unless something drastic happens with the miners. Question is how many knotzos get wrecked by following their false prophets into the abyss. I'm hoping it's a lot fafo.

Despite my best efforts this is the most credible stance I’ve heard on this side of the argument yet. I will humbly take this all into consideration and I appreciate you taking the time to express it as well as you did. Best to you and yours, fren

Typo alert: I meant to say reconcile the mempool and the block chain. I'd also like to point out the core just got finished the nightmare of dealing with csw and Bitcoin cash before that. They are not perfect for sure but it's sad to see them taking all this heat for writing freedom tech for free.

I've misjudged you, scrotus, probably because of your name. Smarter than I realized by a lot. Not that I know all the arguments involved here, I haven't followed this that closely, but you laid it out pretty well here. Thanks

Awesome scrotus 🫡 you explained it so perfectly 🙌

Totally. Look at this idiot.

When's the last time you paid for Bitcoin core software? Lemme check never. Has it ever fucked you in the ass? Prolly not #gfy #whathaveyoudoneformelatley

The argument that the OP_RETURN increase was "needed" to reconcile the mempool with mined blocks ignores the fact that mempool-block divergence is not a bug, but a normal feature of node operation. Each node maintains its own mempool based on its own local policies and this is at the heart of Bitcoin. Actors will still use services like slipstream regardless of OP_RETURN limits. At least by going to miners you had KYC and legal constraints, now garbage and illegal content is normalized. Sure core is not a monolith, but it's governance is corrupt and challenging was needed. Ultimately more implementations are a net good for the network and as plebs we should be cheering for this rather than picking sides like fucking tribemen

So pathetic. What a loser

What was wrong with Bitcoin in 2022?

It has a current exploit that was never patched Now you answer my question

Willing to bet you don't own any Bitcoin

That's how consensus works. Same as OP_RETURN > 80kb transactions before v30, technically valid but not enough nodes were relaying them. I understand another argument against is that fees estimation could be unreliable, but I don't think we ever reached a point when this was problematic