BIP

TheGreatMuffin

> Bip 110 just has to win a few times and the chain starts to be at risk. There has already been many blocks found by them (before mandatory signaling) if that same thing happens after mandatory signaling, chaos will happen as people find learn out how a soft fork is different than a hard fork. Could you please explain what the non-BIP and the BIP110 nodes will do, when the BIP110 chain gets like 5%-10% of hashpower (currently it would have 1%), and a non-BIP110 block is mined by the rest of the miners?

XysterU

Terrible fucking article from some bullshit site that explained nothing for me. Felt like a high schooler wrote it with AI without knowing anything about Bitcoin or BIP-110

HSuke

Historically, many. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, and I don't think it's relevant as much as how many core maintainers are working for these companies. Ultimately, the core maintainers have absolute control over pull requests and rejecting BIP-110. As for core maintainers, nearly all of them were involved with 1 of the 3 companies I mentioned, some having worked for more than one of these companies.

Modrew

Can BIP110 avoid this spam?

MCHappster1

Sure, I actually agree with you, they changed the default policy. It doesn't mean it won't have zero impact, however, that wasn't my main argument or concern: My point is that we want individuals (plebs) and their families to run nodes and mine with them; these are the people who decide the rules, which is great because these people don't worry about offending podcast sponsors or getting ostracised by the Bitcoin devs they work with. They care about their life savings and that's it. This is why the plebs get furious when someone like Gloria Zhao (who apparently doesn't own any Bitcoin) starts pushing through contentious changes that didn't even have majority support from within Core. My point also implies that BIP110 shouldn't need to lobby a giant mining pool (there should be enough support from the community for that to be a given). This is great, because next time someone pressures this giant mining pool into doing XYZ, they'll be unable to comply because they work for the node runners, not our fiat overlords. This was the defense Core used when Craight Wright sued them. Wright argued they made all these stupid changes (e.g. Segwit), and Core just said, "sorry bro, the nodes decided not us". Now, Core v30 "attacked" the network by deciding to lever in additional use cases against the wishes of the community (it didn't have broad support, not even from within Core). Ironically, I think it's important that this attack, and the defence (BIP110) happened (and is happening), so that people see Bitcoin's immune system (decentralisation) working as intended. If this natural attack and defense process isn't exercised, I'm afraid that we've resigned to Core having too much power, the industry having too much power, and the network no longer serving node runners.

Nerdy-Boy-26

Finally...okay why? And give me YOUR points. Not echo chamber slop. What does BIP-110 prevent you from doing OR what about it socially turns you away?

Nerdy-Boy-26

All your points are so wrong and misinformed. It is hilarious. ANYONE CAN TRANSACT IN BITCOIN RIGHT NOW. Bitcoin can do all the things you mentioned with BIP-110. This is downright lying. Just say you want to spam, which is what blasting Op-Return to 100kb enables...

S_Lowry

I've been running a node since 2018 and I will never run BIP-110.

Nerdy-Boy-26

All these BIP-110 spaces are disingenuous. Spammers are moderating these forums then deleting individuals supporting BIP-110. Most of the Anti-BIP110ers don't even run a node but tell us how we don't understand Bitcoin. Run a node, then you can address us. The end.

Appropriate-Talk-735

August 8 after BIP-110 done.

stackeddeck180

BIP 360

hiroo717

I think the argument boils down to BIP110 formalizing that Bitcoin's function is as money, whereas those in your camp say that Bitcoin is whatever it is.

bitusher

There is always ways to hide spam https://stephanlivera.github.io/Bitcoin-Spam/ Which is why most spam is already BIP110 compatible https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/

lexicon_riot

BIP 360

bitusher

With a decentralized ledger its impossible to prevent spam so we can simply drive up costs . BIP110 tries to do so in a very ineffective and harmful manner that also breaks many monetary use cases of Bitcoin and encourages spammers to hide their spam more which has nasty consequences Here are 5 better solutions : 1) The best solution as I often promote is to spend and replace Bitcoin as money. This is best done on other layers like lightning that use much less blockspace, but the more people that open and close channels the higher the fees exist for spammers which will encourage them to use altcoins instead for their spam. Yes , more l2 txs reduce onchain use which is why a large focus should be on adoption overall to increase both L2 and onchain transactions concurrently. 2) The second best solution is education which I have been doing for many years where I inform people that nfts/inscriptions are scams and don't do what people claim they do and are a waste of time. Another important point of education is pointing out the fact that Bitcoin is not immutable as many spammers like to market to sell their product. 3) A third solution is we invest more in bitcoin and bitcoin adoption which raises the price of Bitcoin and since fees are priced in BTC onchain fees will grow as well pricing out spammers . 4) You can set your op_return filter to any setting you want even with corec30 or v31. My personal node is set below the default of knots . Although my pool node is best set to the default of core for better block propagation 5) Spam is just one aspect when the overall concern is efficient block usage. Core is constantly updating to insure better efficient use of Blockspace usage and reducing UTXO bloat in many ways. If you are not a developer you can also help when a company or service misuses the blockchain. Common examples: a) coinbase initially used 2 onchain txs for every withdrawal instead of 1 and also didnt use batching. We shamed them and used other exchanges until they corrected this behavior. b) Some exchanges today still don't use batching for withdrawals . Shame them and use better exchanges until they change c) Some exchanges still don't allow lightning withdrawals .Shame them and use better exchanges until they change d) consolidate your utxos and or batch txs where its appropriate . Use lightning or other l2 options as much as possible e) Shame any miner or company that uses or promotes spam and don't do business with them. Those are 5 quick solutions among many more that I actively am involved in. Suggesting solutions that don't work at all or have very harmful tradeoffs is not effective. This being said I completely support your right to enforce any rules you want on your node and even fork off. Power to the node operators. Just do so with your eyes open because BIP110 supporters and their leaders often are lying or making misleading statements .

bitusher

>Between 7 and 15% of Bitcoin Nodes are signaling support for BIP110 Its much lower than this because many examples of unnatural amount of peers on the same subnet like https://x.com/GhostofMapl/status/2024620340047978612 and multiple examples of sybil spikes in general https://x.com/w_s_bitcoin/status/2045657562419224651 And many of the "legit" nodes are essentially sybil nodes as well because they are non economic.

bitusher

> The hashrate only shot up right before activation This is not true https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2072709448708280352/photo/1 BIP110 has ~0.4 % hashrate and has been renting hashrate to get to peaks of 1% https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling Segwit had a steady 25% to 30% hashrate support 9 to 4 months before activation , 38% hashrate 3 months before , 50% hashrate 2 months before , 85% hashrate 1 month before Thus its around 0.4% or 85% when you compare segwit to BIP110 ~1 month out

The_Bitcoin_Act

Your seed phrase IS the key, not Ledger the company. If you wrote it down, you're safe even if Ledger disappears tomorrow: buy any BIP39-compatible wallet, enter those words, your funds reappear. The device and app are just interfaces. The seed is portable across brands because BIP39 is an open standard. If you never wrote it down: you can't view it after setup, that's by design. Buy a new hardware wallet, generate a fresh seed, write it on paper or steel, transfer your funds over now while you still have access. Never store the seed digitally, no photos, no cloud, no USB. Physical and offline only.

jimbojw

What you need to write down is the 12-word seed phrase that Ledger generated for you. Once you have the seed phrase, you can enter it into a different wallet, such as Sparrow (desktop) or Blue Wallet (mobile). I don’t know what derivation path Ledger uses, but you’ll need that too. With the seed words and derivation path, you can use any BIP-39 compatible wallet for recovering your Bitcoin. Don’t know what to tell you for the other coins.

nullc

Hunter Beast-- I assume that's the same knots supporter from twitter that has been leaking apparent plans to perform a quadratic sighashing attack against Bitcoin on shortly after 110 forks off ever since cguida and luke-jr began their out of nowhere fud posting against BIP54 (the long overdue and slow progressing bip that address the quadratic sighashing bug and other vulnerabilities). Not sure that most people care about the governance opinions of arsonists. :P 110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

crunchyeyeball

Were you given 12 or 24 words to write down when you first set up your device? If so, this is your "seed phrase", and can be used to recover your funds to any wallet which supports the BIP39 standard (which is pretty much all of them). If you don't have these words, you may have screwed up somewhere. These words are *far* more important than your physical device, and must *never* be stored digitally *in any way*. Every scammmer's goal is to trick you into typing those words online so they can drain your funds. Don't do it.

Zwiada

Bitcoin is already starting to prepare against Quantum computing attacks (e.g., BIP-360 & BIP-361). I would not worry too much about that.

bittenbycoin

C'mon, Satoshi found an ingenious way to save jpegs and documentation on thousands of computers simultaneously, a feat that no one could figure out earlier. Still, is BIP-110 the best way to undo what Satoshi labored for?

BangkokBrandon

You're misunderstanding my point. I’m talking about *pre-activation* hashrate, which historically didn't matter. Early on, miners holding the vast majority of hashpower flat-out boycotted SegWit and blocked BIP 9 for months. The hashrate only shot up right before activation because the economic nodes backed BIP 148 and weaponized game theory, forcing miners to signal or watch their blocks get orphaned. The pre-activation metrics for BIP 110 look identical to any contested soft fork before the market shifts the financial incentives.

nullc

> Segwit had even lower hashpower and it activated. What are you talking about? BIP-91 required 80% hashpower and achieved it. Segwit had a vast supermajority hashrate and >90% nodes. 110 has <1% hashrate and by my measure 3% of nodes. Jason at Bitcoin ocean says he observes 3-6% nodes. Even the highest figures which don't exclude obvious sibyls only claim 25%.

bitusher

Lets compare the last contentious soft fork during the blocksize wars to BIP110 Miners - 50% support segwit at this time vs 0.4% BIP110 support . Miners that held out agreed with 99% of segwit but a few simply wanted to exploit asicboost in addition . hence segwit2x . With BIP110 , miners don't really agree with any of the new rules or rule changes https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling exchanges , no major exchanges support BIP110 so they created a fake one . Many supported segwit at this time wallets - almost every wallet supported segwit at this stage . Only a couple obscure ones support BIP110 devs - almost every dev supported segwit , only around ~4-5 principle devs support BIP110 and we suspect Dathom is chris guida so ~3-4 devs merchants- many merchants and merchant processors supported segwit , and almost no merchants support BIP110 users and nodes - almost everyone supported segwit and BIP110 supporters are filled with altcoiners and nocoiners trolling or attacking core for past grievances , and sybil nodes. Sure there are plenty of real supporters as well but they represent a very small fraction of 1% of the bitcoin ecosystem Their supporters and leaders often promote their soft fork with lies and misleading statements

TheGreatMuffin

> A fairer count would be how many run core v30. Why would that be? v30 doesn't try to enforce a protocol change on the rest of the network; in that context any non-BIP110 enforcing node is the same, so the 85k vs 15k is a correct count (leaving out the fact that it doesn't really tell us which nodes are actually used by their maintainers and which aren't, which are just spinning rust on some AWS server etc)

nonkeywayzee

While that is true that is just a small part of the entire picture of how forks work in Bitcoin as both soft forks and hard forks are ruleset changes. Hard forks are rule relaxations so they needs overwhelming consensus to be activated without creating a new token, they are not **backwards nor forward** compatible at all, they are essentially new rules that requiere a new software in order to understand them. Soft forks in the other hand are rule tightenings, meaning that old nodes don't need to update in order to accept them, they are backwards compatible but that doesn't mean they are forward compatible, they can be if the newer rules don't restrict anything from the past rules. They also need **sufficient** support. In the case of BIP-110 while it is true that it is a soft-fork, it is **not** a forward compatible, your old node can and will accept BIP-110 sognaling and enforcing blocks, in fact it already does, but soon BIP-110 signaling nodes will reject blocks that don't signal for BIP-110, meaning that the moment a non-signaling block hits them they will reject them and be forked out of the network expecting **exclusively** BIP-110 blocks. They also reject some already existing rules, meaning that even if a block is signaling for BIP-110 they just need to include one transaction considered valid in the ruleset we have today but invalid in theirs to reject the whole block while the main chain accepts it. The [BIP110 fork simulator by Orange Surf](https://bip110.orange.surf/) from mempool.space might be better at helping you visualize it than any words I write will ever be, it includes BIP-110 today hashrate and you can calculate the chainspliy using it and other hashrate levels.

FarCanary

BitcoinCore, the company that writes the standard bitcoin software, seems to have been accepting money from companies that want to use the bitcoin blockchain for non monetary uses, and has made several changes that favour these companies. Some node-runners aren't very happy about having their hardware exploited by these private companies. BIP-110 is an attempt to fight back and revert the changes.

nonkeywayzee

And there is no consensus for BIP-110.

No_Dust6221

Its a soft work. BIP110 will just activate and bitcoin will work as how it has been working since the day it released. Nothing to worry about, we are just getting rid of spammers

No_Dust6221

BIP110 Will activate and miners will signal for it. Im excited

quintavious_danilo

BIP-110

Appropriate-Talk-735

I agree BIP110 could get 1% (and then 0) but my guess is it will be 100%. Im interested to see :)

jkl2035

Think it’s really time to Push BIP360/361

Appropriate-Talk-735

Do you think the miners will ignore BIP-110 and nothing happens?

reactNativeNoob

If it was substantial it'd be more of a conflict.  As it stands right now though they make like 0.1% of their revenue from transactions which would be disallowed by BIP110.   So it's really a question of whether they think 0.1% is worth potentially splitting the chain over.

reactNativeNoob

Depends if miner signallIng is smooth or not.  As of today, Foundry is allowing all their individual miners to vote on a hash rate weighted basis.   Now that they've done that, other large mining pools will have to do something similar so this has advanced well beyond the scenario many anticipated in which mining pools simply pretended it didn't exist and kept the older rules.   If any of them proceed with signaling then BIP 110 ought to have a pretty clear road in front of it. If they all refuse to signal, then there will be uasf and possibly miners coming over after but it'd be a more chaotic scenario. If there is a chain split, I imagine it would cause a sell-off as this is completely unknown territory for traffic investors. Even if that does happen, I'd think the bull market will return once this is over, either way it shakes out simply due to the chain split risk overhang being removed.  

ChipNDipPlus

Everything you said applies to BIP110. The only difference is that you believe that segwit was majority supported, which you admitted is anecdotal. And btw, from my anecdotal point of view, I thought segwit2x had massive support because I listened to the media. We actually have lots of evidence on the grass roots movement of BIP110, but it's always dismissed on the grounds of "these people are ignorant", fake, etc. One of the indicators of BIP110 support is the sales and installations of start9. But anyway, at best you'd accept this metric and concede and at worst we have no metric we agree on,  so we reached an impasse. Have a good day!

kirovreported

Not temporary would be a gigantic red flag and that alone would be reason enough to refuse any support for BIP-110.

TheGreatMuffin

> What's your metric and how did you measure it? Admittedly, not an objective metric by any means, but: my own perception based on observations of the technical discussions (GitHub, dev mailing list), as well as various debates on here, Twitter and youtube, and talking to other bitcoiners. Also, I think most nodes on the network have been Segwit ready way before activation actually happened. IIRC miners were not opposed to Segwit itself on technical grounds but were dragging their feet on activation because of asicboost advantages (which got eliminated by Segwit). BIP148 was a "game of chicken" with the miners to force activation, but they ultimately caved in before and Segwit got activated by BIP91, which I guess was an olive branch offering to the miners, so there is no risk of a chain split and chaos. So you might argue that it was BIP148 that activated Segwit and there's is an important role for BIP148 indeed, but it was important precisely because the "intolerant minority" had the support of the silent majority, which wanted Segwit. This is the big difference/misunderstanding of the BIP110 proponents: it seems that they mistake BIP148 for the whole reason that Segwit got activated, not for its partial role in the whole drama. A minority driven softfork cannot succeed if it doesn't have the support of the broad(er) community just because its supporters think that they are the defenders of bitcoin, however noble their intentions might be.

TheGreatMuffin

> Segwit happened under less support. That's not true, Segwit was accepted as a good proposal by the broad community way for a good while before the activation. BIP148 was a somewhat contentious activation method but it ultimately became unnecessary because miners accepted the BIP91 activation proposal, precisely because the majority of the community wanted it.

bitcoinfamilia

We would still use PoW but we would change the PoW algorithm so the ASICs wont be able to mine bitcoin anymore. Luke Dashjr said we can fire the miners by changing the PoW algo and then we will be able to mine bitcoin on our home PCs. Luke also said we probably wont need to because 55+% of miners will most likely signal for BIP110 before mandatory signalling and activation will go smoothly. But if that doesn't happen, then we will be forced to change the PoW algo.

TheresNoSecondBest

>BIP110 gets rid of all the garbage. You have been lied to, mate. https://financefeeds.com/bitcoin-developer-stores-66kb-image-on-chain-challenging-bip-110-restrictions/

NiagaraBTC

BIP-110 does not stop spam

bitcoinfamilia

[The next halving has zero miner signaling too. It's still going to happen. Just like BIP110 will. Miners do not make the rules. Miners are an easily-replaced component.](https://i.imgur.com/NcPRKF5.png)

Awkward-Silver1333

How can we get BIP-110 pushed through

NiagaraBTC

Stop trying to make BIP-110 happen. It's not going to happen.

Narrow_Lake_5862

That you'll be able to spend your bitcoin in the future (have your bitcoin added to a block) without competing agaist spam/jpeg/video/text data people are also inserting into the blocks. BIP110 gets rid of all the garbage.

TheGreatMuffin

> Sure, but how much are the miningpools willing to risk a reorg? The risks of a re-org are currently non-existent, since barely 1% of miners have signalled support for BIP110. I don't think there's any reason to assume that miners will suddenly switch, given that the fork proposal is also not supported by the broader community. I don't buy the argument that miners hide their support up until the last moment, there's no reason for that as they are more interested in smooth functioning of the network (financially as well as reputationally), so early signalling would have been in their own interest. > And if the miner colludes, bitcoin is lost. They can then force though any change they want… If a small minority of users can somehow push protocol changes against the will of the broader user base, bitcoin would be lost, too. Fortunately, that's not the case. Protocol changes require consensus from the majority of participants (which miners are a part, too), otherwise status quo remains. The latter is what is most likely to happen with the BIP110 proposal.

Alarming_Pin295

BIP 110 is Shitcoin vibes.

DarrelXero

Yeah, that was my question too. It seems they took a retrospective snapshot of hashrate for weighting purposes but it isn't clear what the plan is at mandatory signalling block height. I feel like they will basically have a way for existing accounts to vote before signalling begins and then signal or not based on the outcome of that vote. One way or the other they make no claim about actually mining BIP110 compliant blocks.

tzimisce

Temporary is a gigantic red flag and that alone is reason enough to refuse any support for BIP-110

JashBeep

This is a false choice. I don't want that kind of data on chain. BIP110 doesn't solve the problem and it creates other problems. Nobody has offered a solution to the content problem apart from real transactions must outbid. That's always been the case. True before core 30, will be true after block 961632. To actually solve it would require locking down many op codes and transaction data structures to the point that it would reduce throughput (if even possible). It's something that may be worth tackling when QC resistant transactions are designed. That's my understanding so far, anyway. Happy to be corrected.

Xekyo

1. I want to be able to use `OP_IF` in Tapscripts. 2. I want to be able to encode more potential script leaves in script trees than permitted by BIP110. 3. I want softforks to be able to make use of OP_SUCCESS in the next next year. 4. The "temporary" nature of BIP110 is an obvious bait and switch. Many RDTS proponents publicly advocate for making the rules permanent the moment after BIP110 activates. This would greatly hamper Bitcoin’s future. 5. BIP110 is poorly motivated, shoddily developed, and recklessly championed. I disagree on principle with a minority imposing its will on Bitcoin in this hazardous manner. 6. I’m not interested in NFTs or embedding large amounts of data on Bitcoin. Painting all opponents of BIP110 as spam supporters is a No-True-Scotsman fallacy. Use of that argument should be appropriately discredited.

statoshi

Right, which is a logical conclusion given that never before in the history of bitcoin have a significant portion of miners waited until the last possible moment to signal for a BIP activation. Signaling is meant to display readiness and allow for smooth distributed coordination across a global group, it's not a game you play to "rug" other miners and cause disruptions.

bobbywawa

It won't, and if it did fork would you sell your bitcoin to buy Lukecoin and put your money where your mouth is ? My guess is no. The same answer all BIP110 people say. Nobody would sell their trad Bitcoin to buy the fork. Ps thnx for storing my JPEGs on your node 😂

JordanPetterPans

BIP110 is for noobs. They will learn a very rough lesson 

nullc

> OP_IF is the cause of the exponential blowup when used by inscriptions. No. Quite the opposite, the use of OP_IF in inscriptions is because it saves them a couple bytes bytes per transaction. It absolutely doesn't cause any blowup or increase what they can store (beyond a couple bytes). > each condition can be expressed as separate leaf. No, it cannot because there are an exponential number of leafs from multiple conditions and even if you didn't mind your computer needing to hash terabytes of data to build your scriptpubkey, they cap the tree depth to 127, making things like a 3 of 6 multisig with backup keys not possible to represent. So it is not just making it less efficient, 110 severely limit whats it can do. Unfortunately the authors of 110 lack the technical competence to understand that IF is an intentional and important feature. > BIP110 removes it only from tapscript, not from sw multisig. Right so now you have your more complicated multisig always forced onto the chain when you could often sign with the root instead. Blowing up your privacy and bloating the chain. > this is only ppl who made a taproot timelock after the default for the size was changed "default for the size"??? sounds like you're thinking of op_return. Absolutely not. 110 bans scripts that are currently in use. No op_return involved. This means that if someone uses an address generated before (or reuses) or if you have timelocks that use these scripts the funds are then gone. And no, timelocks secure at least millions of dollars of bitcoin and are in production and have been for a very long time. It's not some "for testing" thing. > this is a logical fallacy - just because it is possible to put spam into a bip110 block doesn't mean it will not prevent it meaningfully. How trivial the change is doesn't matter, how expensive it is to spam does. Yes, it's not expensive at all. I believe the change inscriptions did to adapt to 110 increases the weigt of their transactions by less than half of one percent. Most NFT things don't have any weight increase at all as a result. > cool we are considering bloat of dozens of bytes of rare transactions while ever since Taproot activation the avg blocksize rose by 0.5MB average blocksize is 1.6 MB and has been that for a long time. Indeed it was elevated during the NFT mania, but OTOH those blocks are much faster to validate and for most people speed up synchronization.

Any_South_6437

it's not the first time bitcoin gets soft forks, and it's always a huge deal. I am not qualified enough to give any recommendations as to what exactly will happen, but I can say this: I am buying right now myself. there's lots of fear in the market right now over this, but in my opinion if BIP110 succeeds, it's a soft fork for the better. doesn't matter what happens, your bitcoin will still be the same, so there's no reason to fear. I would however prepare for a -10% or bigger crash, as many people will get really emotional regardless of if BIP110 wins or loses.

Professional-Bet961

I don't know what i am. Im just telling my vision for Bitcoin, so if this makes me BIP110er, here I am.

Charming-Designer944

Its not right or wrong, and the risk of a hardfork is low. One side will lose. Might rise and try again with a different approach. My opinion is that BIP-110 is over reaching and dead in the water. It cannot gain broad acceptance by miners and major economic stakeholders. It could had been accepted if implemented only as a relay filter to limit what kind of transactions are allowed to be relayed by the network which strongly discourages the alleged spam. But doing this by far going changes to the consensus rules is going too far. Even if temporary it's a permanent change to concensus and need to stay in the rules and code forever, even if the rules are only active for a small range of blocks.

NervousNorbert

No no, he just heard some talk over the last few days, and thanks to this thread he's no becoming a rabid BIP-110 forker. Surely that's how it is!

TheGreatMuffin

> All current nodes will accept blocks that are bip110 compliant. That's correct but incomplete: they (about 80-85% of all nodes) will also reject the BIP110 chain, because it will be invalid (missing non-BIP110 compliant blocks). Meaning, the BIP110 chain will split off as soon as a non-compliant block is miner after activation, and since it's currently only about 1% of hash power signaling for BIP110, this is pretty much guaranteed to happen. > Personally, I think a persistent chain split is unlikely. I don’t think that miners will risk mining on the legacy chain with the risk of having all their blocks there thrown out if the bip chain becomes the longest. "If" carries a lot of load here :) The larger community and the vast majority of miners seem to simply ignore the soft fork attempt, so it doesn't seem likely for the BIP110 chain to become the longest *valid* chain. The majority of nodes will reject it, and the majority of miners will ignore it, as it looks like of today.

DarrelXero

Yep, confirmed. Just a BIP110er acting like a confused babe in the woods just looking for answers. Bullshit.

DarrelXero

Mods have updated their stance on BIP110 discussion and are no longer deleting posts on sight. Just FYI.

TheGreatMuffin

> Core side is more liberal and like cat and monkeys jpegs carved into blocks to eternity. This is a wrong representation of that "side": nobody likes jpegs (at least if you are not mixing up the Core side with the actual spammers/NFT scammers etc) or is more liberal with spam. It's more that this side thinks that it's either not as harmful as the BIP110 proponents make it to be (we have a strict blocksize limit and fee market for exactly that reason: to prevent blockchain bloat and make nodes easy to run), or that the "solution" is worse than the problem itself for multiple reasons. > Their argument is that this exploit is an extra source for miners to gather more revenue. Not the main argument, at least not for me. Main reason for me is that spam is a nuisance but not a huge problem that needs to be approached with a risky soft fork without consensus. > The outcome of this subject is unknown. No one knows if miners will support either Knots or Core. This is a bit disingenuous. 99% of hashpower has neither signalled nor made any type of statements of supporting BIP110, and 80-90% of nodes haven't switched to BIP110, so the outcome is pretty much clear (BIP110 not having consensus from the broad community/the network, and being dead in the water).

NervousNorbert

Hah, sorry, I wrongly assumed you were speaking in general terms about how to tell two bitcoiner camps apart. The BIP-110 camp consider "spam" a huge problem on Bitcoin, and many say bitcoin will literally die. It's obvious to me that this is just weird hyperbole. Arbitrary data sucks, but there's no way to get rid of it in a high-entropy system; ultimately you could just hide data in fake public keys, polluting the UTXO set forever, which makes it more expensive to operate a node. BIP-110 doesn't stop arbitrary data, but while trying it hampers Bitcoin's script language. Combined with the hostile rhetoric from the BIP-110 camp (frequently calling their opponents absurdly vile things, harassing developers etc), this makes BIP-110 seem like an attack on Bitcoin. The fork will fail because it has very, very little support.

Appropriate-Talk-735

Perhaps BIP-110 fails and we get a proper dump. Im guessing we see 40k in August if that happens.

Any_South_6437

thank you for your time, and please understand, that I don't personally remember everyone that I have replied to, as there are way too many people that I am talking with. but my question still remains: * what is it that "**you personally"** want to do that you can't do anymore if BIP-110 gains mainstream popularity and replaces Bitcoin Core? **how does this hurt you personally**? please give as many examples as you can think of. I am not asking any hypotheticals as to how BIP-110 would hurt bitcoin as a whole, or hurt you indirectly through proxies. I wanted to know that what can **you yourself** not do anymore with bitcoin if BIP-110 succeeds? what is it that you use bitcoin for that would become impossible to do with BIP-110? >I explained that BIP110 would not stop spam. I explained that BIP110 would break scripting and scaling, thus hurting bitcoin's use as money thank you for that. I have received an answer to BIP110 not preventing spam from few sources now, so I understand how it works. you also said, that it would break scripting and scaling, thus hurting bitcoins use as money. so again, if you can, could you give some examples as to how it affects you personally? what kind of scripts and scaling you need to do on bitcoins layer 1 that you wouldn't be able to do anymore if BIP110 succeeds? >you're pretending that my reply doesn't even exist. it's possible that I miss what other people post sometimes, but I am not willfully ignoring anyone. I apologize if I have been rude, as I'm a human just like anyone else and sometimes I do or say things that might be hurtful to other people by mistake

longonbtc

I typed up a long comment and replied to you seven hours before you posted your comment that I'm replying to right now. I answered your questions. You asked to "correct me if I'm wrong" and made factually incorrect statements "from your understanding", and I spent the time to help educate you because you were indeed wrong. In fact, I answered more than your questions. I explained that BIP110 would not stop spam. I explained that BIP110 would break scripting and scaling, thus hurting bitcoin's use as money. I explained why Core changed the default datacarrier. I wasn't disrespectful. I wasn't arrogant. I wasn't mean. I didn't call you any names. I didn't berate you. And I didn't tell you to go read what somebody else wrote. You immediately downvoted my long reply and it's obvious that you ignored it because you continued to post the same stuff and you posted this comment. And now in this comment you're pretending that my reply doesn't even exist. This is why many people don't bother explaining it anymore. People have been explaining it for more than a year. Anyone that still doesn't understand it at this point is just purposely choosing to not even attempt to try to learn about it. The analogy I'm going to use is not meant to offend you, but it's akin to trying to teach a flat-earther that the earth is round. They don't want to hear it and they are not willing to try to learn about it.

MCHappster1

Don't you guys literally argue that the free market will price out spam? Now you're saying BIP 110 is gonna make the free market not price out spam? The free market will price out spam either way, BIP 110 is just gonna make spam way more expensive. I don't see a problem with making a harmful action expensive to perform.

MCHappster1

Bitcoin Core changed relay policy while ignoring the controversy and pushback. BIP 110 aims to revert that relay policy back to its original state pre core v30 which can only be enforced using consensus rules. That being said, Core changed relay policy without unanimous support. If BIP 110 succeeds, then Bitcoin has proved to the world that it hasn't been captured by centralised interests and large mining operations.

Appropriate-Talk-735

After BIP-110 is cleared, we can get crazy cheap sats there.

Appropriate-Talk-735

I think BIP-110 is implemented by the miners and nothing happens. If they dont I think we will see some selloff.

TheGreatMuffin

Hmm, thanks for that positive thought. To build up a little more in this direction, I think the vast majority of BIP110'ers have actually good intentions and it's nice to see people being passionate & protective about bitcoin, even though it stems from some misguided ideas/misunderstandings and emotional charge. Hopefully, lessons will be learned and rifts will heal, and the most toxic/misguided voices fork themselves off in more permanent ways.

TheGreatMuffin

> Bigger question is what happens to all the delusional people who have been saying not only is there a chance but that it's a certainty that bip110 will be successful. It's completely crazy to me how they are convinced that by some "game theory" wizardry the mining pools suddenly will flip the bit and start signalling overnight, although from what I've been seeing on Twitter last few days, it seems that some of the loud BIP110 voices actually starting to gather thoughts on "what happens if BIP110 fails" type of scenarios, so maybe there's some reflection happening after all.

TheGreatMuffin

> So on August 6th or 7th block 961,632 starts the bip110 lock-in. What do yall think is gonna happen? The bip110 chain version will not receive any (meaningful amount of) blocks, fizzle out and end up dead. Its proponents will blame the miners, Core and "big bitcoin" for colluding and blocking it, not conceding that the general community rejected the proposal. Or it will receive some blocks by luck or because it actually achieved to attract some small amount of hash power (something like 5-10%), but the chain will still be rejected as invalid by the rest of the network (80-90% of nodes and 90-95% of mining power), because it is missing blocks that are invalid from the view point of the BIP110 nodes, but valid for everyone else. Can't really see anything else than that happening, as things stand today.

faisal_yk26

I also have an old seed of 18 words saved in my old docs. I was expecting it to be BTC wallet seed I think. But I am also not sure and unable to use it. AI said that it is a cryptographic standard known as BIP39

brando2131

If its twice as expensive, so half as many people stop using it to encode data. Then the damage is the same. As the same amount of data is encoded on the blockchain. Likewise If it's 100x more expensive, and therefore 99% of people stop encoding. That one person that encoded something makes up for the other 99 people in size/damage done. I'm not saying encoding data on BItcoin is a good thing... I don't want it either... What I am saying it that I think its an unsolvable problem. There's a thing called Parkinson's Law, and it's used to express this concept. It originally goes "Work expands to fill the available time.", in computing it's used to state "Data expands to fill the space available for storage." Which is exactly the predicament Bitcoin is in. I think people aren't considering the above when talking about BIP110 as I haven't seen it discussed with this into consideration.

BangkokBrandon

The bottom isn't in until after the BIP110 / Spam war is finished. Not making any buys until that's resolved.

Todo_es

Please go and read all the very detailed BIP110 debunking by someone who knows what he is talking about (Greg Maxwell). https://old.reddit.com/user/nullc

Todo_es

Continues: > Another thing that changed over time is that early on in Bitcoin there were a bunch of bad denial of service vulnerablities and we implemented a lot of capricious limits on transactions to protect nodes. These limits only effected relay, miners could still bypass them. Over time as the software was improved the restrictions were relaxed. This made it easier to put some kinds of junk in transactions, but all the big image stuff still violates these policy size limits (even today) and so anyone doing it takes their transactions directly to miners. > > Miners collectively earned about a quarter of a billion dollars mining NFT during the crazy two years ago. Of course, this same process had the virtuous effect of depleting the funds of the people doing it, which is presumably why they aren't so common now. :) > > In any case, entire images were embeddable before then and after, though the blocksize increase means that instead of a megabyte of data there can be up to four megabytes. > > The real thing that changed is that early cases of people dumping data in Bitcoin were doing it for "free storage"-- and the fee dynamics of the network have completely suppressed data stored with that motivation. But the events of two years ago were actually motivated by it being expensive to do (as that shows it's valuable and limits the supply) and were willing to pay handsomely to do it. (to all our benefit in the sense that it funded building a lot more hashpower to secure the network, a silver lining-- but also to our irritation because it drove up fees for a while) > > > isn't it worthwhile to prevent large non-monetary files of data from being stored on the blockchain as a raw, single-transaction file system? > > No-- after any the splitting or merging whatever is all done completely invisibly by software for free-- software that can be vibe coded by AI in minutes. The "inscriptions" jpeg stuff you're mostly referring to already normally splits images into multiple pushes. The encoding side decides what sizes it wants to use, I think small images are usually a single push but larger ones are usually split into 400kb pushes. The decoder software handles putting it back together. (also, I officially curse you for making me go read the code that implements this stuff!) > > But more critically: > > > If so, why claim BIP-110 doesn't 'meaningfully impede' them? > > [Because it doesn't](https://knotslies.com/). (this demonstrates that you can make BIP110 compatible transactions that are just images.) > > If BIP110 did what you hope it did then I think it would still not be worth the collateral damage. But if it didn't have the collateral damage, and even had part of the blocking effect then it would be fine with me. > > The nature of the problem though appears that effective isn't possible and even having a small effect will always come with huge collateral effects. > I don't know the exact details, but if bitcoin will be here for decades, centuries or even millenniums, then paying $0.10 today to store 100KB of data on the blockchain till the ends of times doesn't seem that expensive on the grand spectrum of things. > In a prior thread on this I posted an analysis that showed bitcoin's mininum transaction fees cost something like 100,000 times more than storing data in S3 for the rest of time under reasonable assumptions. (Basically cost of a bond that will pay S3's cost and then some). > > Storing data in bitcoin also doesn't achieve that-- today nodes can run pruned (so they store no history), and proposals like utxotree mean nodes never need to store anything at all. Zero knoweldge proofs are getting better all the time and in the not too distant future it will be possible to forget most of the chain history without losing any security. (And if it's not ... we've got other problems! but either way the NFT stuff doesn't make anything worse). > > We're also free to go look at what the people actually doing it do and say and this isn't whats motivating them. If it were they still have a choice of many popular blockchains that are cheaper, and including ones that are specifically designed and advertised for data storage and presumably will not implement techniques to eliminate the storage even once they're mature because for them the storage is the point. > > > I don't think that it's been deceitfully promoted > > In this very thread (even this very post) you're making the claim that people who oppose this profit off spam. This is absolutely untrue. There is no evidence to suggest that it's true, and the only reason you think it is true is because it is a lie that has been frequently told by the creators of 110 on absolutely no basis. They have also quite offensively and audaciously said anyone who opposes 110 is a pedophile (?!?). It is a dishonest and hypocritical attempt to silence opposition. I haven't gone deep on this point because I think it is not critical to the argument that 110 is a terrible idea -- but it is relevant to the difficulty some people are having understanding the counterarguments. Some of them are technical and can be hard to understand-- but it's impossible to understand if you're primed to think you're being lied to. > > The spammer/nft people don't care about this for their spammy purposes because it doesn't stop them. Though before someone gotchas me with a link to an NFT developer opposing 110: I expect that some are also big time ultralibertarian bitcoiners-- I mean who else is going to build a money laundering system based on monkey jpegs-- who independently oppose 110 for the same principled reasons I do. Fact is that although I don't like NFTs, the NFT people are as capable of loving *bitcoin* as much as anyone. > > > here's clearly no direct monetary gain for anyone moving to a node with stricter rules on how to use bitcoin > > There are many, this "filtering" opposition begain and remains a promotional stunt for Ocean mining pool, which is a relatively obscure mining pool. Ocean is the only pool of any significance supporting it, it was created by and is primarily promoted by Ocean employees. Ocean is earning on the order of 100 bitcoin per year on the back of this marketing. Calling on people to rise up and impose new rules on Bitcoin on their own is integral to their entire marketing story. (And to be clear: I agree that miners should control their own policy.. but it's hard to sell that to people when they are content with the well considered policies of the default node software. To sell them on it you need to convince them that the status quo is not okay). > > The incentives are even more clear when you consider that the net effect of this is intended to be "firing" the 100+ person volunteer open source community that develops Bitcoin and replace it with an implementation maintained by a single organization. > > [Start9](https://start9.com/news/#:~:text=Mechanic) has also profited tremendously from 110. They sell overpriced minicomputers to run nodes. The model is clear: how do you convince joe average that he needs to run a node? Not with Bitcoin Core: 70,000 other people are already running that. But if you convince him that Bitcoin is broken and that he can fix it by running niche software that most other people aren't running... > > > there's clear monetary benefits for many people, especially those that fund Core and want certain changes to be made. > > How is that? Which parties are these and how do they benefit? The argument against 110 is also an argument to *not* change the rules of bitcoin. I don't see how opposing 110 can benefit anyone financially except by virtual of not undermining Bitcoin's value by making it less functional and trustworthy. None of the regular bitcoin core devs or their funders are at all involved in those spam/nft businesses, nor do I think any of the nft businesses particular care because 110 doesn't actually block them. > > > I mean the trend is clearly skyrocketing upwards, even more aggressively so with the v30 release. > > The peak was achieved before and was somewhat lower in the months after. > > > but it's clearly trending towards a 100x+ bigger transaction space than it had before > > yes, there a tiny fraction of a percent of block space did increase, but that increase had nothing to do with Bitcoin Core. >

Appropriate-Talk-735

BIP-110 proving the nodes are in control of Bitcoins future.

bitcoinfamilia

We the plebs refuse to allow bitcoin to be used as a cloud storage server and nothing will stop us from getting BIP110 activated. We will use our nodes to throw out invalid blocks. We will change the PoW algo to fire the miners if we have to. We will win no matter what!

BashCo

BIP110 is the proposal, which has not achieved anything remotely resembling consensus. RDTS is the implementation of BIP110 that has been deployed on mainnet despite the complete lack of consensus.

nullc

Weird and delusional AI slop. Long pointless discourse, it says a lot of stuff of no significance and fails to make a point and/or misses the point of the text it's referring to. Outright falsehoods and hallucinations. It's obsessed about some random developer that was only around for a short while and is long gone. That doesn't really make sense at all except when you've been monitoring the knotzis chats and know they are obsessed with John because they believe that Gloria-- the lead dev they chased out of the project earlier this year-- couldn't code because she's a woman and that this other guy was secretly ghostwriting her contributions. No joke. Twitter has seriously mentally damaged a regrettably large population of people, they've been so spun up on culture war crap that they see it around every corner and outright fabricate it where it doesn't exist. Like a lot of AI slop the piece takes some positions that are superficially reasonable, even unavoidable-- e.g. that some contributors are more influential than others. Then entirely fails to connect that to things happening by picking someone who wasn't that popular and then throwing random connections to him at the wall. To give a specific example where the article mentions me directly: it cites some old dispute where multiple contributors asked that luke-jr be removed from acting as bip editor because he was unambiguously abusing the position to attempt to block activity that he personally disliked. The article says that I supported his removal only because of a "mistake" where he NAKed the BIP when he meant to instead NAK something else entirely, as if that "error" had anything to do with my views on luke's conduct. Meanwhile my comments were more than clear enough on my problem with Luke's conduct: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1104#issuecomment-826397286 He was being overtly dishonest and gaslighting by falsely claiming that the "the community" had chosen a his proposal over the one documented. In reality he stood nearly alone with his proposal while support of the document one was nearly unanimous-- so he was holding back the document on the basis of a total delusion. Even if he had been *right* that more people preferred his proposal it would have still been a wrongful abuse of his position to hold up the alternative-- the whole process is supposed to be a largely non-editorial documentation exercise-- it documents procedurally well formed proposals even if they're dumb or unpopular, and there are plenty of BIPs for dumb ideas. But because of Luke's obvious difficulties a lot of people, myself included, held back from criticizing him too overtly. At the time of the dispute I was largely uninvolved in the project, but I felt I needed to speak up both because I wasn't particularly involved and the dispute and to the extent that luke's role was the problem it was a problem I created. If somehow that comment which Hodl's AI had to have seen wasn't clear enough a moment of looking would have turned up [plenty of other remarks](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/mruopv/bitcoincorebased_bip8_lottrue_taproot_activation/gvscx0c/) from the time about Luke-jr's abusive conduct which spelled it out further. I deeply regret ever making him bip editor when I couldn't continue doing it. Because the the job was supposed to be non-editorial and purely procedural something of a human rubber stamp I hoped it would give him an opportunity to develop his interpersonal skills in an context where his narrow-minded focus wouldn't be a hindrance and where a wonkish approach could even be a bit of an asset. This turned out to be a disaster because rather than following the limited requirements of the process he has systematically distorted reality so that he could falsely declare things to be violations of the limited requirements in order to get his way. It was a real error in judgement on my part although it's one that is overshadowed by the error of the current project leaders in failing to end Luke's abusive influence even after he started explicitly calling for the destruction of the project. In any case: this whole subtopic is brought up as some example of some John-directed conspiracy. But outside of the lawsuit where he was a co-defendant I've probably only exchange a few hundred words with him ever on any subject all, and I can't find any evidence of discussing this specific matter with him (other than that he probably saw my public messages). The simple fact is that everyone regularly involved with the project knew what a nuisance Luke's peculiar behavior could be-- and, if anything, John's relative outsider and newcomer status resulted in him not participating in the particular conspiracy of silence to paper over Luke's reprehensible conduct so when John said what most other people were thinking he failed to do so as indirectly as others did. If anything you could attribute this work to be a piece of pro-bitcoin-core counterpropaganda that supports the project by making its opponents look gravely incompetent. In any case, I'm really looking forward to august when this subcommunity forks off onto their censorship coin and Bitcoiners can move forward with handling them like other crapcoiners: by ignoring them. [copy and paste from the last time this same person posted this same material]

Todo_es

Are taken down because everything regarding pro-BIP110 has been thoroughly debunked many times. In short: It is well known by now that BIP110 is NOT good for Bitcoin and that Core devs were right to oppose it (as well as miners, nodes and bitcoin users in general).

Any_South_6437

I think you are right, that BIP-110 will lose in the end. but it will be an interesting battle to witness

Any_South_6437

so, just to confirm, your life as a bitcoiner would not change in any meaningful way, and you would be able to do everything that you can already if BIP-110 succeeds? I do however agree that soft fork is inevitable, and that it will provide a more limited use with bitcoin, there's no denying that. the chaos part to me seems like it's blown way out of proportions, but I guess time will tell

Any_South_6437

I've been going around asking core supporters this simple question: * what is it that "you personally" want to do that you can't do anymore if BIP-110 gains mainstream popularity and replaces Bitcoin Core? how does this hurt you personally? please give as many examples as you can think of. I am stupid, and I am clueless to this whole situation, but I still want to do my own fair share to help the right side to win, because as stupid as I am, I still have a vote in this matter, just like thousands of other stupid node runners who are confused by all of this. but so far, team BIP-110 has all the answers, while also being the most polite and respectful, whereas with the exception of nullc from cores side, are all disrespectful, arrogant, mean, and can't seem to have the ability to answer a single question. the best reply to one of my questions from a core supporter was:" go read what this other person wrote. I'm not gonna bother ".

Any_South_6437

can you give some examples of how bitcoin would change with BIP-110? what is something that you personally can't do anymore if BIP-110 succeeds? and how is BIP-110 malicious if it's open source, where anyone can read the code and verify if it's malicious or not?

IInsulince

Citing the fact that Dropbox gives various free tiers for certain people under certain conditions doesn’t really address the point: when you start storing a meaningful amount of data, it costs money, and that’s because it’s a burden on them to store it, which is why they monetize it. That’s their whole business model after all, people want stuff stored, it’s a burden to store it, they charge as recompense for that. Unless you don’t wish to defend that and would rather try to claim that cloud storage is truly free through Dropbox? Because that’s just false, of course. The free tiers you outline are the exceptions, not the rule. As for getting around BIP-110 for storing spam anyway, heard. I wasn’t trying to argue in favor of BIP-110 I was trying to argue more generally that, philosophically (and independent of BIP-110) it is wrong for Bitcoin to be used as free cloud storage and accurate to say that is effectively what is possible today. The follow on claim that BIP-110 fixes that is of course dubious, but whether it does or not doesn’t impact the former philosophy as I understand it.

nullc

> > [BIP-110] trashes smart contracting > > Why is that bad? If the Bitcoin blockchain is just a shared ledger, can we let smart contracting exist on Layer 2? Why do we need smart contracting on the base layer? Layer 2 (unless you're calling something with a trusted third party or only altcoin based, no bitcoin) can't have any functionality that isn't backed up by Bitcoin. The general concept is that the participants exchange unconfirmed bitcoin transactions but use smart contracting in bitcoin to set them up in such a way as if anyone tries to cheat the honest participants can "take their counterparty to court" by posting the data to the blockchain and the network will adjudicate it. But it has to understand what its adjudicating. This also means that there are disproportional gains from flexibility in Bitcoin: you could have thousands or millions of use of some expensive 'smart' feature that exists in the chain but few or none of them actually show up in transactions. Taproot generalized the idea to make it possible to have a huge script, even petabytes in size, but the network only sees a tiny portion that you've decided you need to use... and if the parties fully cooperate then the public never learns there was even a contract at all. > And does it really trash smart contracting, or only smart contracting for a specific purpose? It's pretty general in its breakage: It removes IF and all related flow control instructions if you know anything about programming you'll know that's pretty major. It also limits scripts to 127 options instead of 2^128. which means stuff with pretty normal size multisigs can get cut off. This kills bitvm and other zero knoweldge proof stuff that generate gigantic scripts but never post more than a tiny bit to the chain. > Why is this bad? Are there legitimate uses of timelock other than storing JPGs on the Bitcoin blockchain? Okay so I hope I really don't need to explain this: confiscating coins from people is a moral and legal wrong whatever the reason. Aside from that, timelocks aren't at all used for any jpeg anything-- I'm afraid you've been jpeg brained by the 110 proponents. :P Timelocks are used to setup L2 systems like lightning so that the parties have time to present their evidence in the case of a dispute. They're also used for wallet security and backups-- e.g. a wallet that can be recovered with 5 out of 7 keys, but after a timeout can be recovered with 2 of 2 backup keys, or after an even longer timeout just one key. Or for inheritance, ... get this coins only if I don't move them for a year, or only after you turn 21. > > it even trashes P2PK --- the address type originally used in Bitcoin by Satoshi. > Why is this bad? Well first-- why is it good! As far as I can tell the authors of 110 didn't even know they did it, and they've refused to justify it. They're the ones proposing changes to Bitcoin and you'd think that blocking a script used by something like a million coins demands some justification! To be clear, the existing coins won't be blocked for this there is a 'grandfathering'. But it means that transactions that pay to these scripts that haven't posted yet, but are later-- either timelocks or script reuse will cause funds loss. There isn't a lot of new P2PK use today, but there is use and none of it appears to be spam by anyone's definition. As far as changing before activation: why should they have to? Bitcoin's value prop includes that you don't lose your funds because you hid them in the back yard. Any time you move funds you take some risk of loss or losing your privacy. > > None of this has anything to do with jpegs. The claim that people arguing against 110 want jpegs is a baseless smear. > Aren't there active, profit-driven businesses whose entire business model relies on inscribing data directly onto the L1 blockchain for non-monetary I don't know currently quite possibly though it can be hard to tell what is a business vs someone's LOL project-- the primary use of NFT's is money laundering/tax evasion by allowing the creation of transferable artifacts that have whatever price you want to say them to have. The image based ones have significantly fallen out of fashion over the last two years. But critically-- these aren't the parties showing up arguing against 110. The NFT response (e.g. in inscriptions) was to just make the few-lines of code change to make their transactions 110 valid. It's people who aren't doing arbitrary data stuff that are hit by the restrictions and can't just twiddle an encoding to avoid it. > From what I understand, prior to the SegWit and Taproot updates, large files had to be split across multiple transactions or external data stores. You've been mislead at least somewhat. You can take a bitcoin node from 2009 (or easier, 2013 2009 needs a number of bug fixes) and run it an sync to the current tip. This shows that literally EVERY transaction in the chain now was consensus valid then. Now to be fair, one that old wouldn't download all the witness data, so you need segwit for that. But in the case of segwit the material effect was that it was a blocksize increase, so it indeed had some effect relevant to this but the effect is just that it increased the blocksize. Developers of bitcoin core fought incredibly hard to get the smallest reasonable compromise, and still it wasn't enough and a huge part of the community forked off onto their own chain. Another thing that changed over time is that early on in Bitcoin there were a bunch of bad denial of service vulnerablities and we implemented a lot of capricious limits on transactions to protect nodes. These limits only effected relay, miners could still bypass them. Over time as the software was improved the restrictions were relaxed. This made it easier to put some kinds of junk in transactions, but all the big image stuff still violates these policy size limits (even today) and so anyone doing it takes their transactions directly to miners. Miners collectively earned about a quarter of a billion dollars mining NFT during the crazy two years ago. Of course, this same process had the virtuous effect of depleting the funds of the people doing it, which is presumably why they aren't so common now. :) In any case, entire images were embeddable before then and after, though the blocksize increase means that instead of a megabyte of data there can be up to four megabytes. The real thing that changed is that early cases of people dumping data in Bitcoin were doing it for "free storage"-- and the fee dynamics of the network have completely suppressed data stored with that motivation. But the events of two years ago were actually motivated by it being expensive to do (as that shows it's valuable and limits the supply) and were willing to pay handsomely to do it. (to all our benefit in the sense that it funded building a lot more hashpower to secure the network, a silver lining-- but also to our irritation because it drove up fees for a while) > isn't it worthwhile to prevent large non-monetary files of data from being stored on the blockchain as a raw, single-transaction file system? No-- after any the splitting or merging whatever is all done completely invisibly by software for free-- software that can be vibe coded by AI in minutes. The "inscriptions" jpeg stuff you're mostly referring to already normally splits images into multiple pushes. The encoding side decides what sizes it wants to use, I think small images are usually a single push but larger ones are usually split into 400kb pushes. The decoder software handles putting it back together. (also, I officially curse you for making me go read the code that implements this stuff!) But more critically: > If so, why claim BIP-110 doesn't 'meaningfully impede' them? [Because it doesn't](https://knotslies.com/). (this demonstrates that you can make BIP110 compatible transactions that are just images.) If BIP110 did what you hope it did then I think it would still not be worth the collateral damage. But if it didn't have the collateral damage, and even had part of the blocking effect then it would be fine with me. The nature of the problem though appears that effective isn't possible and even having a small effect will always come with huge collateral effects.

Blisstopher420

Very well articulated. I hope someone con-BIP-110 responds to this with their argument.

TheresNoSecondBest

>Only evil people support Core. Do not listen to anything they say. >One cannot simply profess to love God while actively opposing BIP110. >Better to endure correction now than purification in purgatory, or worse, eternal seperation from God in hell. And this kids, is how regarded the 110duct tape people really are.

IInsulince

Warning to anyone else: This guy consistently posts the lowest quality and most ridiculous BIP-110 supporting posts to such a degree that he seems to be a bad actor. Just be aware.

cklester

Edit: I just saw a post of yours that might answer my questions... If you want to respond briefly here, feel free. If not, no worries. Thank you for engaging. I'm shocked (but grateful) this thread has survived given the ridiculous censorship that has been happening about BIP-110. (I use JPGs as a short-hand for "non-monetary data," just to be clear...) \> \[BIP-110\] trashes smart contracting Why is that bad? If the Bitcoin blockchain is just a shared ledger, can we let smart contracting exist on Layer 2? Why do we need smart contracting on the base layer? And does it really trash smart contracting, or only smart contracting for a specific purpose? \> ...it confiscates coins from timelock users... Why is this bad? Are there legitimate uses of timelock other than storing JPGs on the Bitcoin blockchain? \> it even trashes P2PK --- the address type originally used in Bitcoin by Satoshi. Why is this bad? I'm guessing that means it locks people out of their Bitcoin? Would they have no recourse to move their sats prior to or after BIP-110 activation? \> None of this has anything to do with jpegs. The claim that people arguing against 110 want jpegs is a baseless smear. Aren't there active, profit-driven businesses whose entire business model relies on inscribing data directly onto the L1 blockchain for non-monetary purposes (and exploiting ignorant people into buying JPGs on the Bitcoin blockchain)? \> Jpegs aren't even in question because 110 doesn't stop or even meaningfully impede people from putting images into the blockchain. Is this the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? What are you leaving out? From what I understand, prior to the SegWit and Taproot updates, large files had to be split across multiple transactions or external data stores. Now, a raw JPEG can be embedded in its entirety within a single transaction's witness data. While BIP-110 might not entirely stop determined actors from obfuscating and splitting data, isn't it worthwhile to prevent large non-monetary files of data from being stored on the blockchain as a raw, single-transaction file system? If so, why claim BIP-110 doesn't 'meaningfully impede' them? I agree that AI is a last resort, and a bad one at that. Are there any videos or articles where pro and con have argued in a public forum about BIP110? Or maybe a forum where this is hashed out in ELI5 format?

Blisstopher420

You're projecting. BIP-110 is stopping a takeover.

brando2131

The counter argument to that, is people will find a way no matter what you do... BIP110 or not. For example, you can encode messages through smoke signals, flickering lights, and Satoshi himself encoding a message in the first block.