BIP

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.

longonbtc

>correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, if someone wanted to spam the bitcoin network with who knows what, they'd have to go miners directly. You are wrong and your "understanding" is incorrect. They did not need to go to miners directly. Core only changed the default relay policy. Spammers were already sending transactions with large OP_RETURNs before Core did that and they did not have to go to miners directly. The network conditions changed and the default relay setting in Core became worthless. Then finally, in October 2025, Core released a client that relayed transactions with large OP_RETURNs by default, which kept up with the reality on the network. This helped ensure several features of Core work well, such as compact blocks, pre confirmation signature validation caching and fee estimates in certain scenarios. The datacarrier is still configurable though so users can limit the datacarrier and handicap their node's ability to assess fees and validate blocks quickly if they so choose to. >from my understanding, I think that it makes it light years more difficult and more expensive for people who really need to go out of their way to send spam on bitcoin with BIP-110. You are wrong again and your "understanding" is still incorrect. It doesn't make it meaningfully more difficult and it only made their transactions about 0.5% more expensive. In case you missed it, that is zero point five percent. BIP-110 does not stop spam. In fact, somebody already embedded the entire BIP-110 PDF inside of a BIP-100 compliant transaction. BIP-110 would cause spammers to put spam in fake-pubkey P2WSH multisigs and other unprunable vectors which would result in permanent UTXO bloat instead of prunable OP_RETURNs, which increases node costs, slows sync times, and centralizes running a node. Every new filter just shifts the attack vector to somewhere more harmful. Furthermore, BIP-110 would break scripting and scaling. It would destroy Eltoo, MAST, covenants, Ark, BitVM, channel factories, statechains, and almost every future L2. It would disable upgrade hooks. It would freeze some existing UTXOs. It would remove the foundation for Schnorr and Taproot efficiency gains. And to top it all off, it will not even prevent spam. The clowns behind this BIP have literally stated that they will just keep rolling out more and more soft forks after BIP-110 is activated. They intend for this to be a never ending circus of soft forks breaking more and more stuff while trying to prevent something that can't be stopped. And even worse, spammers would still be able to use fake pubkeys and things like Stamps or BPUB and we don't even have a good way to stop those. So we would just maim our own monetary scripting, all to ineffectively attempt to stop spam.

QuietPsychological72

Yes - BIP110 is a collection of node runners exerting authority over what the bitcoin network in attempt to make it what they think it ought to be. If you don’t run a node, you don’t get a say.

LearnBitcoinCom

Glad it clicked! Honestly BIP-3 confused me too until I sat down and read it against BIP-2 side by side. The four-status version is a real improvement once it lands...

pathetic_lineage

the whole BIP-3 thing confused me for a while, your article actually made it click

reddit4485

So far, all 4-meggers have used OP_IF and OP_FALSE which is prohibited by BIP110. So BIP110 would have blocked every 4-megger created so far.

cklester

Do you use a spam filter for your email (like every other rational human being does)? Then you should be for BIP-110. (That's his assertion. He just did it sarcastically.) :D

bitcoinfamilia

Only evil people support Core. Do not listen to anything they say. 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. Many bitcoiners are not comprehinding the eternal consequences of rejecting BIP110. This is not just a technical matter. This is a battle of good versus evil. It is not only bitcoin’s future that hangs in the balance, the immortal souls of those who stand against BIP110 are at stake as well. At your particular judgment, Our Lord will judge the whole of your life including whether you knowingly opposed what was right. Those of you who oppose BIP110 after having been presented with the truth should examine their consciencies carefully. Deliberately supporting evil is no small matter. If one dies without repentance, they should not presume upon God's mercy. Many bitcoiners today assume that because they "believe in God" they will make it into Heaven but faith without right action is empty. One cannot simply profess to love God while actively opposing BIP110. I pray that those who have hardened their hearts and chosen to reject BIP110 will repent before their particular judgment. Better to endure correction now than purification in purgatory, or worse, eternal seperation from God in hell.

CoffeeAlternative647

My incentive on this matter is simply act accordingly and be ready if shit hits the fan. However, what boggles me the most, is that BIP110 only have around 15% users signal. That said, what is preventing the other side to open a URSF against this if they have the overwhelming majority of node runners ? Why fight this over social media only and not counter it properly, with the right means to do it ?

BashCo

> My posts have been hidden by (auto)moderation in pretty much every one of these threads. That's likely because of a.) heavy handed filters and b.) filters that don't take approved contributors such as yourself into account. >the poster removes their post which makes the whole discussion vanish, and when they don't remove it themselves a moderator removes it Sometimes they delete their own thread. Sometimes their account gets suspended by reddit for ban evasion, vote cheating or some undeclared reason. Other times users report threads enough that they get filtered for human review. >disinterested mods will remove their posts then cry about censorship because its their main marketing cry, meanwhile they engage elsewhere primary with disposable socks and bought accounts Yes, both of these things have been happening. Not dissimilar to the Bcash era, an irony that is lost on the people engaging in those tactics. I agree that the problem goes beyond a single rogue moderator, but I think a lot of the contention is downstream of certain choices and behaviors of certain Core developers. I also agree that BIP110 is not a solution.

OrangePillar

The only way to make a 4MB block is to avoid OP\_RETURN entirely, and BIP 110 doesn’t prevent blocks like that, which use fake pubkeys and are objectively worse for the network than the use of OP\_RETURN.

OrangePillar

BIP 110 will be rejected because it is technically unsound and does not accomplish anything other than forcing the use of more damaging techniques to spam the network. If a handful of “plebs” can be tricked into activating a malicious software fork that does not have consensus, bitcoin was never going to succeed. This reason alone is enough to reject it.

-bit-thorny-

I piss on spammers, unless they are on fire. But that doesn't help fighting it. If you make a BIP that marginally improves spam reductions without breaking Bitcoin fundamentals, then I'll support it. In the meantime I'll rely on Satoshi's anti-spam design.

nullc

> number of nodes not relaying blocks has an impact on miners risk analysis. No it doesn't -- already knots nodes are so poor at relaying due to their filtering that they play no important role in block propagation even today. "The net views censorship as damage and routes around it." -- has never been particularly true of the internet but it's absolutely true of the Bitcoin network. All that's required is that the subgraph of non-censoring nodes is connected and blocks flow along those paths, ignoring all that aren't. To effectively censor the concentration of censoring nodes needs to be so great that its likely the graph of non-censored nodes would be cut by them. We're taking >>90%. And that's without any countermeasures... if there were 90% knots nodes it takes only a second for AI to make a shell one liner that will disconnect some of them. Knots nodes will also spontaneously disconnect Bitcoin nodes once the mandatory signaling kicks in (because they forwarded an 'invalid' block) which will further improve the connectivity among non-knots nodes. So I think that's completely irrelevant. What would matter is the economic significance of bip110 users, e.g. not wanting to buy non-110 coins. But they won't even trade for 110 coins today even on preferential terms. I don't think the evidence supports a compelling economic significance. > you mean those who were against a controversial minority UASF? I think the claim that there was any meaningful "UASF" with segwit is an incorrect distortion of history. Instead, [BIP91](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki) and some outside commercial factors (Bitcoiners funded an alternative mfgr to supply miners who bitmain had threatened to cut off if they supported segwit) were what made a difference there. I was extremely vocally opposed to BIP148 at the time, ::tisk tisk:: haven't studied your blocksize war history!

harvested

🤣 That is cute you can you have an opinion on BIP-110 when your portfolio is all strategy shitcoins and no bitcoin >45% MSTR >5% MSTR leaps >30% STRC >20% STRK

user_name_checks_out

It's a complete load of crap, see here: [Help me understand this whole BIP-110 saga](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uvs3kv/help_me_understand_this_whole_bip110_saga/)

No_Dust6221

If you want bitcoin to stay as money, switch to bip110 and prevent child porn from being engraved onto bitcoin blockchain. Because thats what happens if core 30 wins and op_return is increased. Core 30 pushed this, they locked discussions on github, they are trying to censor bip110 and knots, their devs are shitcoiners (gloria zhao was working for eth and never owned any bitcoin). BIP110 will active because its a natural response to a pushed agenda

nullc

BIP 110 is a radical and disruptive change to the protocol takes away a lot of functionality. Everyone wants bitcoin to stay money, that's never been a serious question (out side of some loony self promotion by some NFT fans). It's like a politician screaming "I LOVE MOTHERHOOD AND APPLE PIE! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!" and using that to imply that their opponents don't also love these things.

elixon

It is not about OP\_RETURN, it is about philosophy: # Core > Anyone paying market fees may use block space. Developers should not become gatekeepers deciding which transactions are morally acceptable. # BIP 110 > If some applications damage that purpose, consensus should reject them. Developers should defend Bitcoin's intended role.

ChampionWorried9640

I disagree with you wholeheartedly, just to preface I was frequenting this sub between 2017 - 2022 (how is Mark doing?). Taproot was a mistake in retrospect, it did not meaningfully improve bitcoin in any way. Inscriptions were the reason I quit in 2023 and BIP 110 is the sole reason I am back. OP\_IF is 90% misused for inscriptions and other bs, it was a mistake to leave it in the protocol in the first place. Disabling it doesn't break anything real. All of your claims are unfounded and are addressed in the BIP since the start: [https://bip110.org/#is-there-any-risk-of-funds-being-frozen-or-lost](https://bip110.org/#is-there-any-risk-of-funds-being-frozen-or-lost) >which 110 does in addition to many far worse changes many such cases. >It's also not an issue that is currently creating any problems for other people. why does 2024-2026 take longer to sync than the rest of the history? Reference Implementation making changes without consensus is also a problem for me. >It's none of our business how anyone else uses bitcoin  jpegs, inscriptions, runes and other crap is not using bitcoin. It may not be your business but it is mine. >  I argue it has literally none: It doesn't make it harder or meaningfully more expensive to embed data in Bitcoin-- because people who embed can just change how they do it. of course it makes it harder and more expensive, some of the hacks become impossible (IF 1=0 OP\_IFs), what kind of an argument is this lmao?

BitcoinBaller420

And if you want proof I'm no fanboy, I disagree strongly-but-politely with him about BIP-110. Fortunately it's not up to him, or me... it's up to game theory.

Any_South_6437

sorry, I'm just trying to learn, and there are many people just like me who are confused from all of this. we do have a vote though, and we are all free to cast that vote on the team that we think deserves to win. I do have a few questions specifically for you -bit-thorny: can you explain to me, or at least give one example as of what you yourself can't do if BIP-110 becomes mainstream? instead of telling how it affects other people either directly or indirectly through proxies, how does BIP-110 affect you directly? also, how did big blockers lose all their BTC a decade ago? and is the same thing about to happen with BIP-110? and who are the people who lose their bitcoin if this is the case?

TheresNoSecondBest

>so, if BIP-110 doesn't do anything to stop the spam, then why is there so much push back against it? why not just let it happen, since it won't do anything anyways? There's push back against the people yourself repeating shit like "free cloud storage", when they deep down know storing data on Bitcoin blockchain ain't free at all. **Bitcoin plebs are pushing back against the lies you're spreading**.

Any_South_6437

there's really lots to unpack, and it's getting way out of my understanding, but just a few points I wanted to bring up: >Bitcoin is the most expensive "storage" that exists by many orders of magnitude, it costs many times more to store any data than it does to pay for it to be stored forever in EC2. 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. and again, if there's millions of nodes running some day, then all those millions of nodes together have to host all the arbitrary data together. hypothetically if let's say there are 1 million nodes running in the future, all hosting a single 100KB jpeg of a dog picture, this results in like a 100GB\~ of combined data that is being stored if I did the math right. >Instead, the people who put data in Bitcoin today (to the fairly limited extent that they do) primarily do so as part of a tax evasion or money laundering scheme. If you make a unique asset that only one exists of— like a work of art— then you can credibly claim that it has any value you want. This means, for example, someone could gift money to you while escaping estate taxes by buying overpriced art from you. To these users the high cost of bitcoin is an asset because paying a lot for the activity makes it look more legitimate, and complaints about the usage are free promotion that aids creating a second market to sell off the "art" later. that's an interesting point that I have never thought of before. as stupid as it sounds, I kinda get it and see how it adds value to some people that want to wash their money or evade taxes. I now understand at least one of the real world use cases for removing the OP\_RETURN limits, and that who it benefits, and I appreciate you for sharing this information. would love to know more similar use cases. >But they all strongly oppose 110 because of all the harms it brings, its lack of benefits, and the deceptive way it's been promoted. I don't think that it's been deceitfully promoted. there's clearly no direct monetary gain for anyone moving to a node with stricter rules on how to use bitcoin. I'm not educated enough to know if BIP-110 will result in a better or worse bitcoin, but I do believe the mission is noble. with Cores approach, there's clear monetary benefits for many people, especially those that fund Core and want certain changes to be made. >This shows larger op returns preceded Bitcoin Core's change by almost two years and did not further increase after that. These are also all fairly small numbers. I mean the trend is clearly skyrocketing upwards, even more aggressively so with the v30 release. not sure what happened exactly during 2024, like maybe it was a test/preparation for what's about to come. 2015-2023 looks really chill and I wish it was always like that. but it's clearly trending towards a 100x+ bigger transaction space than it had before, and there's also a clear demand for it too, and there's no way that is sustainable or good over the long run. \----- the rest of the stuff you wrote was either too complicated for me to understand, or there wasn't much to comment about, but I appreciate you taking your time to explain all of these things. I love asking this question from others, so I would love it if you also had a view on this: * 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. do you find that the art stuff would be useful for you for tax purposes, or are there some other things that you would lose the ability to do if BIP-110 passes? like hypothetically let's say that 100% of node runners use BIP-110, how would that affect you personally? would you still own or use bitcoin, or would you call it quits?

nullc

Forgive bit-thorny -- his name tells you what to expect. :D While you haven't seen all the other discussions this subject has bit discussed at great length and it's understandable why some people are tired of it-- especially because opposing 110 gets you called incredible names and because it is a nuisance to feel forced to have to defend bitcoin from being changed out from under you. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that, but damn, the reality of it kinda sucks. BIP110's authors are profiting off the promotion for their mining pool they get out of this... but the people opposing it, we just get shit on, and smeared... and dragged into discussions over the same points that have been answered over and over again. It's not your fault-- but don't take it personally when someone sounds tired of it.

-bit-thorny-

> if BIP-110 doesn't do anything to stop the spam, then why is there so much push back against it? why not just let it happen, since it won't do anything anyways? You cannot think you are serious. What a moronic thing to say.

Bred_Slippy

Glad you're taking this approach. Things like BIP110 should be able to be discussed on here freely, as long as things stay civil. It did appear as possible censorship, which then leads to questions, however unfounded, around the mod's own agenda/s, who may be influencing them etc.. 

Any_South_6437

that is exactly the conclusion I came to. but please answer my question: * tell me with your own words, that what is it that you yourself have been doing with bitcoin that you will lose the ability to do if BIP-110 becomes mainstream and replaces Core? don't worry about how it affects other people, or how it affects you indirectly through proxies, and instead just give me real world examples on how BIP-110 will limit you yourself personally when sending bitcoin transactions?

privacymatterznow

Thanks for this reply and detailed technical explanation. I even saw a tweet by Adam Back to consider changing the OP Return to 130 bytes to make way for future features like CTV. Another Bitcoin core supporter said that the idea is to go for 100kb is to further remain neutral. I have to find again the Bitcoin mailing list where a chunk of the discussions occur but I am glad it is happening on reddit also for clarification to make a more informed choice on running a node. I think a couple of major points that need to happen are decentralizing mining further. I am not sure how if I run a full node at home, how to mine directly to it if I have a bitaxe instead of relying on a solo pool like CK. Oh will it make it harder to run a node due to the increasing price memory and then hard drive space to affect peoples' ability to run a node? Or would the AI crash bring prices back down to reality? I am a fan of the least amount of friction so if I buy a mini computer then I have to buy a side 2TB-4TB to future proof myself to account for the space. I also read the side of BIP 110 also making it on the roadmap to account for CTV and those features. It's hard to make the case online so I further suggest to go to Bitcoin meetups. I have had the benefit of meeting core developers to ask them more in depth about this but a lot is above me because I am also trying to take into account future features. 

BashCo

We had an overzealous moderator who was pretty trigger happy regarding BIP110 threads and automod filters. We've refocused on our longstanding policy that discussing BIPs is generally fine (short of astroturf spam), but that promoting contentious fork clients is prohibited.

Any_South_6437

yeah, I'm starting to see the pattern now. the whole fight really is about the other side wanting to use bitcoin as a cloud server to store their non-monetary data for free, at the expense of all the tens of thousands of node runners. I do not know, that how much money these exploiters will lose if BIP-110 becomes a thing, but it's very obvious that they have a lot of money at stake. it's a deep rabbit hole that I think is worth dwelving into, because imagine if someone was able to run or store scripts that tens of thousands of bitcoin nodes are running 24/7/365 free of charge for them.

nullc

> you didn’t even mention the pretty absurd 55% activation threshold Because the 55% is misleading! The BIP claims that but when you look into the details you'll find that that's just reasonableness-washing. (and funny that they think 55% is reasonable!) Really 110 activates with 0%: at block 961,632 its first change to the consensus rules activates even if there is no support. It will start rejecting all blocks that don't "vote" for 110. Mental image: downtrodden Ukranians in a polling booth in occupied Ukraine 'voting' for reunification with Russia with a Kalashnikov barrel gouged into their temple. Of course the 'vote' is nothing but pure pretext, they could have just as well had the full ruleset activate at that point, but the showing they have the power to force others to endorse them against their will is the point. Or at least that's what they're going for. In reality it's more like a bunch of clowns with a balloon sword making the demand. ;)

Any_South_6437

like, help me understand. so, if BIP-110 doesn't do anything to stop the spam, then why is there so much push back against it? why not just let it happen, since it won't do anything anyways? another question is, that why is Core changing the default OP\_RETURN from 80 bytes to 100KBs, if there's nothing that will stop the spam anyways? people can spam exactly the same way with BIP-110 or Core if iBIP-110 does nothing? you did however mention that you had issues with BIP-110. could you share with us that what issues you are having?

itsybitsybtc

BIP-110 doesn’t stop spam. Nothing does. Bitcoin itself is an anti-spam mechanism. It can be priced out, that’s the only solution. UTXO set bloat is another issue, and there are A LOT of tiny UTXOs that are never going to move and still have to be synced during an IBD when setting up a node. That sucks a lot. While I agree with the main philosophical driving factor behind BIP-110c I’ve got many issues with it and I reject you implying that because of this I somehow support core. My node runs v27, I have no reason to upgrade. I can do what I need to do and Bitcoin works for me therefore fuck everyone else and what they want.

DavidKens

I’ve never understood classifying some transactions as “spam”. Why does anyone care what other people do in their transactions? Are blocks getting expensive? Welcome to a taste of bitcoin’s future success story. Blocks are supposed to get expensive, that’s how this whole thing works. Seems to me like a fundamental confusion about bitcoins core principles. There are no spam transactions, such a concept makes no sense in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the least efficient cloud server you could build - people aren’t using it for convenience, they’re using it because it’s Bitcoin - and making it more expensive to encode data (which is all they’re doing and all you can ever do) will not stop that because cost was never prohibitive in the first place for this use case. You want a document to exist in the cloud for a thousand years? Bitcoin can do that… just because some people upload documents you think are stupid doesn’t mean the idea is frivolous. All BIP-110 does it makes it slightly harder that it already was to fund bitcoins security budget. End rant.

Pasukaru0

> they don't want bitcoin Core to allow the use of bitcoin as a cloud storage server. They don't want it in bitcoin in general. It's not only about core (which doesn't want this either). > what is it that "you personally" want to do that you couldn't do before thanks to changing OP_RETURN from 80 bytes to 100kbs? Loaded question. The change to 100kbs in core was only a **default** value change regarding the `datacarriersize` option. For one, anyone that sets this value in their config manually was/is not affected by this change. Second, everyone is still able to change the value to whatever they prefer, though it doesn't have any effect in the grand scheme of things, see below. Third, this is a node policy, not a consensus rule change. You could use OP_RETURN with no limit before the change. Changes to this only affect the relay policy of your node, it does not make those transactions invalid for anyone else. Meaning, a miner can include transactions with any op_return size in a block and your node will accept that block with no issues, regardless of your `datacarriersize` setting. So in essence, the change to 100kbs of the default value was merely to align node policy with the consensus rules that have been in place for the past 10+ years. BIP-110 changes this to be a consensus rule, that's why it will lead to a chain split as soon as the first transaction is mined that exceeds the BIP-110 limit. > how would it be beneficial to send data up to 100KBs on the bitcoin network over something like Discord or WhatsApp? You would have to ask the spammers for their motives. I guess one would be uploading monkey jpegs and selling them to people that are willing to pay more for it than it costs them for the transactions.

BTC_MYTH44

BIP-110 is also activating soon! 🪢

CompetitionDouble420

BIP-110 UASF causing some real contention between core && knots devs. I went down the BIP-110 rabbit hole and decided to hold off on running a node locally. We'll see what happens come next month.

Live_Jazz

BIP 110, much yelling, but personally I think people are irritable because number down and need something to bicker about.

DarrelXero

Everyone is on X calling the BIP110 morons morons.

Effective-Ad5644

bip110 if it activates properly and wins, we will have bitcoin. run BIP110

brandonholm

Breaking SHA256 isn’t really a threat from quantum computers. Breaking elliptic curve cryptography is an issue though, and many devs are already planning on how to transition bitcoin to quantum secure signatures. Look at BIP-360 for example. You can also be relatively quantum secure by avoiding reusing addresses and not using taproot. This is because normal bitcoin addresses are a hash of the public key and the public key isn’t exposed until the address is spent from. So if you don’t re-use addresses, your key isn’t exposed until you spend it, at which point it’s already spent.

nullc

BIP110 does not reduce the resource usage of nodes. It doesn't even block spam-- when pressed about it's ineffectiveness against spam its principle authors and advocates are forced to admit that it does not do so, BIP110 instead installs a permanat Bitcoin "Home Owners Association" that plays god over what kinds of transactions are permitted or denied. It guts Bitcoin's smart contracting ability by removing "IF", and removes the ability to make backwards compatible additions to the protocol by removing OP_SUCCESS. It will confiscate the coins of people using timelocked inheritance scripts. And it's been promoted through a constant campaign of dishonest personal attacks that has left many people being fearful of criticizing it.

nullc

No it wouldn't: The prior "cap" wasn't doing anything, and virtually very little data has gone in above the limit. Even if you imagine, quite unrealistically, that 100% of the >84 byte opreturn data since that release would have not gone into the chain then the savings by now is less than the size of one block. BIP110 is exploiting a fake problem that sounds concerning in order to install the no-coiner owner of Ocean mining as king of a permanent Bitcoin Home Owners Association.

Ace2021

This is why BIP110 is important for the future of pleb node runners.

megafreedom

20 words might be SLIP-39 instead of BIP-39. Especially if all the words are on this list: https://github.com/satoshilabs/slips/blob/master/slip-0039/wordlist.txt Multiple pieces of software like Sparrow can unlock SLIP-39, you should find it as part of the GUI.

Alfador8

Try downloading Blue Wallet and entering them into there. It has a function that checks the words for formats other than BIP39. Good luck!

karmassacre

Running a node is indeed way too clumsy and expensive. That's why we need BIP110.

CamachoFor_President

If you find a list of words it is most probably BIP39 which is a way to make write the private keys in a human readable way. But usually they are 12 or 24 words long. They should be in this word list: https://cryptotag.io/bip39-list/ If they are not in this list then it is most probably something else completely. And do not write the words here! If it is the private keys, anyone with the list of words can access the funds.

nonkeywayzee

You BIP110 people will be so surprised when you discover we have a blocksize limit that can't be bypassed.

bdemon40

Hence the support for BIP 110. Bitcoin Mechanic brought your point up this week in a [recent video](https://youtu.be/axwNgIeH5_o?si=aFriqmSdB-ke3SgG&t=1556).

JordanPetterPans

No lol. It's weird how people don't really understand that bitcoins power is that there's no CEO or greaseballs behind the scenes trying to get rich.  Literally every new coin has some skidmark behind it and they try to tell you how smart they are or whatever lol.  Watch how well BIP110 goes ..

PrizeAsleep6133

Of, for, and by the node runners (people). BIP 110 to prevent turning your node into a public file storage dumping ground! Make BTC money again! Fight big government; protest by running a BIP 110 node; and Miners Signal For IT!!

statoshi

You need me to explain the BIP to you? Sounds like you should [read it yourself](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Deployment) to find out what happens at block 961,632. Hint: it creates a chain split!

Appropriate-Talk-735

BIP-110 failing.

Realistic_Fee_00001

>BIP-183 defines a dual-node topology: Bridge Nodes and Compact State Nodes (CSN). Sounds a bit like full nodes and SPV wallets, no? >The Bandwidth Trade-off In computer science, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Utreexo trades massive storage and disk I/O savings for an increase in network bandwidth. Inclusion proofs are not small. A standard Merkle proof requires 32 bytes for every level of the tree. For a network with tens of millions of UTXOs, a single proof can be around 1 KB. If every transaction input in a 1 MB block requires a 1 KB proof, the data required to transmit that block across the wire increases significantly. Many argue that bandwidth is the bigger bottleneck. Xthinner would cut the traffic by an estimated 90%!. I don't know if this is possible with Utreexo.

Laukess

Care to elaborate? BIP-110 does not stop spam. You can still imbed data. Also, it will just split off, so it's not like it matters anyway.