BIP

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.

locustsandhoney

This link is meaningless without any context. Today, you can post graphic and illegal images on the blockchain. This could lead to it being literally illegal to run a node and give authorities the pretext to seize your equipment. After BIP-110, that will no longer be possible. It’s easy.

bitusher

> BIP-110 closes exploitable bugs This is false. BIP110 will just make spam more dangerous by obscuring it as financial transactions or splitting it up which creates more UTXO bloat. Most spam is BIP110 ready https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/

locustsandhoney

This has such “hello fellow Bitcoiners” energy. “I hate spam too” every paragraph. None of your alternatives work. “Education”…. lol! BIP-110 closes exploitable bugs that were introduce by the incompetent and nepotistic Core. You don’t fight spam with “education” or “shaming.” You screw over the people who want to do it.

No-Masterpiece2246

Sztorcfork is hot garbage. BIP-110 won't activate.

Quirky-Reveal-1669

I think the BIP-110 discussion that currently takes place is just the next chapter in this history.

The_Realist01

Nobody is actually talking about this. Everyone is on BIP 110 vs core v30

Routine-Surprise-601

Disclosure: I'm on the support team of Ballet, a cold wallet brand — weigh my take accordingly. Open source firmware matters, but I'd argue the first trust question is different: at any point in the device's life, did a single party ever possess your complete private key? Firmware audits don't save you if key generation or the supply chain is the weak link — pre-generated keys, factory tampering, and shipping interdiction are where the ugliest compromises happen. The checklist I'd apply to any wallet: how is the key generated and who could have observed it; can you verify the device wasn't touched in transit; if the vendor vanishes tomorrow, can you recover with open standards (BIP39/BIP38/etc.); and does the security model survive you making one mistake. Our answer to the first question is two-factor key generation — two key components created by separate parties in separate facilities, combined only in the user's hands, so the manufacturer never holds a complete key. That's a different threat model than a signing device like a Coldcard, which is excellent for active spenders. Point is: "open source" is one axis of trust, not the whole picture.

fresheneesz

Well, bip-110 doesn't do that. Bitcoin is already spam proof because you need to pay a fee for every byte on the block chain. On chain data is absolutely useful for monetary purposes. Bip-110 is the "you can't grow dandelions because they're weeds and not food" solution. And even if you think data harmful to Bitcoin, bip-110 is the solution of removing trash cans to discourage creating trash.  And on top of that, it's intended to last only a year! Wtf is the point of that? This isn't some urgent emergency we need to rush a half baked fix out for. If it was a serious bip, it would be a complete and permanent fix with a clear path to solving the problem it intends to solve, not a temporary patch to buy time to come up with a better solution maybe.  BIP-110 is the real spam. Fork around and find out fool

nonkeywayzee

BIP-110 [doesn't solve spam at all](https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/), only the free market does.

nonkeywayzee

Problems with your claims: 1. One month before the lowest threshold activation to any Bitcoin fork in history, [BIP110 only has 0.76% of hashrate support](https://bip110monitor.com/), the only metric in Bitcoin that can't be sybilled. 2. All the shitcoin protocols that started the worst purity spiral registered so far in Bitcoin [have already bypassed it](https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/), except for Labitbus. 3. The people supporting this nonsense are the same people attacking developers, sending death threats, telling other that their nodes might become illegal (as if Bitcoin gave a fuck about that), sending legal notices to miners, and a long list of things throughout these 3 years of discussions.

bitusher

1) 10-20% of full node runners do not represent 10-20% of Bitcoin users because most users just use their wallets or exchanges full node and spinning up a non economic full node is common practice as a way to "vote" for BIP110 when all it does is mislead representation 2) There is good evidence many BIP110 nodes are sybil 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 3) 10-20% is not even a majority , let alone consensus. Additionally , we can't let a minority of full nodes to force changes we disagree with upon us even if you incorrectly assume they are all real and economic (many of them aren't ) ----------

bitusher

Its a very small fringe community , much less than 1% of Bitcoin that lacks consensus trying to scare you . They pose much less of a threat than Bcash did. Miners - 50% support segwit at this time vs 0.5% 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

bitusher

false dichotomy . There are many ways we are fighting spam that don't involve BIP110 https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uoiwcv/whats_up_with_bip110_and_the_fearmongering/ovxpqx9/ I understand you don't like these methods and thats fine , but stop misleading others with suggestions that no other options exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

JuxtaposeLife

While I can appreciate his intelligence and passion, I think he is (and BIP-110 supporters are) guided by fear, and not aligned properly on this topic. But I can appreciate everyone has a right to their own opinion on if we need to change BTC to censor spam... I think it's a dark path that leads to more sensorship later. Fundamentally Bitcoin already ecenonically punishes spam. Its built to reward proper use and punish those who don't use it properly.

Capable_Swordfish_30

Forcing BIP-110 would be an unnecessary and harmful intervention. **Here are the facts:** * **1)** It is impossible to clearly define what "spam" is; it is entirely subjective. Getting into definitions would inevitably require continuously changing what constitutes a valid transaction. * **2)** In a currency, what you *cannot* do is just as important as what you can do. Demonstrating the capability to filter transactions could prompt regulators to ban Bitcoin within their jurisdictions unless custom, on-demand filters are applied. * **3)** The free market of transaction fees already acts as a natural deterrent against publishing irrelevant data. * **4)** It will always be possible to encode arbitrary data inside transactions anyway—for instance, within the addresses themselves. * **5)** It is currently possible to use `OP_RETURN` to explicitly flag transactions that have no financial meaning, allowing mempool managers to easily exclude them.

bitusher

Its very different by almost every metric Miners - 50% support at this time vs 0.5% 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 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 principle devs support BIP110 and we suspect Dathom is chris guida so 3 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.

sideshiftai

It's pretty prevalent in conversations already no? Jameson Lopp (+ others) pushing BIP-361 a couple of months back for example. Probably will hit the news cycle again very soon

Pasukaru0

> Bip110 is the best option I wholeheartedly disagree. Since BIP110 not able to stop spam, it merely restricts a few mechanisms. So it only encourages spammers to use the other mechanisms, them changing to something else is cheap and they already found out how to do it. And by using those instead of the more efficient mechanisms, they are using up even more storage and compute of your node.

Pasukaru0

We do! It's just that in my opinion it should be through measures that would actually work. So far nobody has come up with anything besides the existing block size limit and transaction fees. BIP110 won't cut it, it has been proven bypassed before the changes even went live.

S_Lowry

This debate is pointless and feels like orchestrated attempt to divide the community more than trying to do anything good. * BIP-110 doesn't prevent spam and seems very unnecessary * SPAM isn't and will not be a big problem. We don't even need much real bitcoin usage as money for spam to be too expensive. Fee market will take care of it.

AdSea1923

I strongly disagree that it will be cracked in 3-4 years. I feel it is a similar story to fusion..that is also coming in 10-20 years... There are many bottlenecks that are needed to be taken care of before BTC is broken by quantum... And it doesn't even affect the BIP wallets. The only time when a BTC pubkey is exposed is during this 10 minute while mining. So I would say real banks and governmental databases are sooner at risk than Bitcoin.

Acceptable-Risks

The debate boils down to whether we want bitcoin to be a monetary network, or store information. The risk is high if we allow information storage in blocks. Bitcoin University on youtube has a lot of informational videos about BIP-110

ahhhaccountname

Im new to this. What happens if their blocks are not accepted by BIP110?

h3llcat101

Quite a lot less, now that this sub-reddit is banning any mention of BIP-110.

bitusher

> What about the 2017 signaling point I made? I think asicboost explains why we saw early signaling from non-bitmain miners. Sure and why they wanted segwit2x so they could continue to exploit ASICboost . I don't know why this relates to BIP110 though

bitusher

> BIP110 blocks are backwards compatible Except they reject almost every block so are not "backwards compatible" as you suggest > f2pool was against segwit The hold out of large pools were actually antpool , viabtc, and btc.com f2pool signaled for segwit in the middle or on july 20 , 2017 long before activation >2017 history suggests miners will follow the nodes rules. horrible comparison because at this stage miners were signalling around 50% for segwit compared to 0.5% for BIP110 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2072709448708280352/photo/1 segwit also had wide support among wallets , exchanges , and users unlike BIP110 There is so few support for BIP110 they had to lie a bunch in their list https://x.com/i/status/2071017378536648993 https://x.com/SuperTestnet/status/2071078883768582185

SupportWonderful2536

Again, I dont really care one way or another, just pointing out how I see this playing out. Its very easy for a node to flip so that is no real barrier. True for any node runner (exchanges, miners, wallets included) BIP110 blocks are backwards compatible so the risk is the opposite of what you say (ie. if you mine a BIP110 block, its valid under current rules and not the other way around). Its the safest way for them continue without disruption. Pretty clear risk-reward decision here for the miners IMO. afaik, f2pool was against segwit and they bent the knee to the nodes in the end. 2017 history suggests miners will follow the nodes rules. Why would it be any different this time around? Again, dont really care. It just seems to me that peoples emotions are getting in the way of seeing the reality of the situation.

bitusher

> risking found blocks for <0.5% in spam fees. BIP110 supporters are so quick to suggest the blocks are filled with spam and now you are suggesting 0.5% in spam fees ... but it has nothing to do with the fees collected . Running BIP110 that will fork off very quickly because almost every block contains invalid transactions means that miners run the risk of losing their whole block reward by running a BIP110 node. It is a common myth that miners are going to all of a sudden switch at the last moment when the large pools like f2pool are so opposed to BIP110 and say they will never run that software. Its not just about spam but inferior software which breaks many features of Bitcoin including monetary functions . They won't run it because they know its inferior and they will not be coerced by such a small group of people.

pezdal

If someone (including AI) has your seed words you can expect an attempt will be made to crack your passphrase. It does not need to contain BIP39 words, but following some process to come up with sufficient entropy is advisable; people are notoriously bad at making up difficult-to-guess sentences.

NiagaraBTC

I hope your "13th word" isn't just one single word. Should be at least 5 or 6 more random BIP-39 words, or something in the format of a strong password.

bitusher

> because BIP-110 blocks are valid under both current and BIP-110 rules they won't be in 1-2 blocks after your UASF activation because almost every block contains spam that BIP110 bodes blocks therefore all it takes is one miner to mine an "invalid" block and than BIP110 nodes will be forked off and not building on a majority chain

oogally

Those stories are more of an ATH phenomenon, but  we've also had BIP39 seed phrases and HD wallets for a long time now, which really changed the game for backups. You haven't had to rely solely on a hard disk for over a decade.

No_Knee3385

BIP-361 with the permanent freeze seems dumb. They should just freeze until upgraded (if possible) so wallets can upgrade with no lockout period. From what I understand, there is a lockout period which i would be 10000% against

Important-Might-7080

My body text for a protest sign for BIP-110.

na3than

You don't know what a BIP is or how they work, do you?

THMTech

The the words you listed are on the list but I do not know about the other 22 words you did not list them. If you want to see all 2048 BIP-39 words just do a search for BIP-39 list.

THMTech

Those words are on the BIP-39 word list. A phrase is usually made up of 12 or 24 words. A 25th word could be a passphrase. It is possible the words are jumbled in a pattern only known to who ever created the list.

AutoModerator

Post is by: babarob98 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1ukmep7/quantum/ Hi fellow Bitcoiners, I would consider myself a long term holder of BTC. I am not writing this post because “sentiment” is low or anything. I would be writing the same post even if price was at 200k. Down to my point. I don’t see many Bitcoiners worried about the quantum threat. The excuse is always “oh we will do a fork, we’ve done it before” or “Banks and everything will be fucked too”. My concern right now is that, yes a fork is possible, but for the Bitcoin devs to align it could take years… For example the block size war took 4 years and Taproot took 2 years. With Q-Day being around the corner, expected 2030 or even 2029 now. BIP-361 proposes eventually freezing wallets that haven’t migrated to quantum-safe addresses, and that goes against Bitcoin’s most sacred principle “immutability” and no central control. That debate alone could slow the entire upgrade process for years while the clock ticks. And it’s not just a technical problem, it’s also a philosophical civil war waiting to happen. I am concerned about OG Bitcoiners and devs not being worried about and working on this subject enough. In my opinion we might not make it on time if it takes years to align on simple subjects, let alone this one which questions the core principles of BTC. What are your thoughts on that? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

TheresNoSecondBest

>It will only create 2 separate chains if the BIP-110 chain has less hashpower According to signaling, the 110 duct tape has less than 0.5% power.

DavidKens

This is the definition of a soft fork: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp Old nodes will accept blocks made on BIP-110, but old nodes don’t know how to do BIP-110 validations. This means the miners not running BIP-110 are able to make blocks that BIP-110 nodes would not accept. All soft forks work this way.

reactNativeNoob

I agree that miners will mine on the main chain, I just think they will enforce the BIP 110 rules since that is the path of least resistance

DavidKens

This is the definition of a soft fork https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp Nodes do not need to update in order to accept the new blocks. You are correct that if miners keep creating old blocks, those would not be accepted by nodes on BIP-110. All soft forks work this way.

DarrelXero

Learn about BIP110 softfork signaling & activation: https://bip110.orange.surf/

AlabamaHotPocketses

Can’t they avoid potentially “mining worthless blocks” by only mining blocks that 100% of the network will accept? i.e., BIP110 valid blocks?

reactNativeNoob

BIP 110 is not forking off by default.  It's blocks are compatible with all existing nodes.  The choice will end up being given to the miners as to whether or not to split the network in order to save 0.1% of their revenue for a single year.   Just don't see it

reactNativeNoob

It will only create 2 separate chains if the BIP-110 chain has less hashpower.  If BIP-110 has more hashpower, the other chain will immediately accept it by default (since it's blocks are still valid on the other chain) and will overwrite the other chain.

NiagaraBTC

Every mined block will be on the main chain. Not every mined block will be on the BIP-110 chain. There will be a fork. 110-coin will be worthless. Miners don't want to spend energy mining worthless blocks. It's that simple.

Easy-Ninja669

That's an appeal to authority, not fact. I've done my own research and come to my own conclusion that BIP 110 is the right direction. 

Realistic_Fee_00001

>You have to expose yourself to an exchange rate risk to make use of BCH features. That makes no sense to me. Have you used BCH? What exchange rate risk are you talking about? BTC/BCH or BCH/USD? You can use BCH directly there is no difference to any other crypto. >Also there are now many BTC holders who have no current exposure to BCH. If they stop to suppress BCH or endorse it, capital will flow from BTC to BCH and they lose value. Yes, BCH has a lot of upside potential. >A low feature, small blocksize (small hardware requirement) coin has real advantages. Resilience to attack and centralization. Again, makes no sense. It isn't even correct. Ask BIP-110 proponents how they feel about Core hogging the code of the single node repository. BTC is very centralized in development. >In my opinion BCH and BTC complement each other and everything would be smoother if their combined supply was 21 million coins. They don't, BCH can do everything BTC can. Once BCH is recognized as the better working Bitcoin there is no reason why it should not also be recognized as the better SoV. That's why they fight it so fiercely. >PS: One advantage of the small block argument is that the whole blockchain has to be downloaded to run a full node. I don't believe that is true. Then why are you parroting their false claims? > If BTC was to make regular snapshots (7 days apart for example) of the UTXO database and then include cryptographic hashes of those snapshots in each live block, then >(1) the hashes must be the same for the same most recent snapshot, a consensus would be established >(2) it makes downloading the snapshot possible >This weakens the argument for the necessity for small blocks. Exactly, BCH is already researching these. https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/chip-2021-07-utxo-fastsync/502/86 https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/chip-2025-03-merkle-header-commitment-for-enhanced-spv-scalability/1518

CompetitionDouble420

Meanwhile, I'll continue mining BTC quietly in the background while watching the retail guys quarrel over MSTR/STRC and BIP110 🤙🏼

user_name_checks_out

> It does. Your opinion doesn't change facts. Someone more informed than I has laid out the arguments against BIP110 [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uhzk8o/bip_110_thoughts/ouc88b1/). Those are not opinions, they are facts.

user_name_checks_out

Your two reasons, BIP110 succeeds in addressing neither of them.

user_name_checks_out

> BIP-110 configures your node to reign in *rein [Reign vs. Rein: What’s The Difference?](https://www.dictionary.com/articles/reign-vs-rein)

TheresNoSecondBest

>I’m glad we agree on that at least. The vast majority of bitcoiners IMHO do. And **finding the correct solution should be a priority**. Not trying to push something that isn't working and could potentially make more damage. >Personally I don’t see how not fixing the taproot exploit or blowing open OP\_Return default policies is making spammers life difficult, quite the opposite Implementing Bip110 would make our lives more difficult. That's the issue. The spammers will need to use multiple TXs, using even more block space, growing the size of the chain even faster. >So enter BIP-110 as pushback. Like it or not the growth of Knots is significant. It’s like 30%+ active nodes and 40/60 knots to core ratio of new nodes in the last year or something like that. I like how the same people running multiple knots nodes tried to rest hash and fake the miners support too, and reaching 0.8% signaling support, which obviously dropped the following period because it's much more expensive than the node Sybil attack they are running. Now back under 0.5% support. You know the node numbers are fake, why bringing that to the conversation?

bitusher

>Start9 That is a small fringe bitcoin company and one of many selling ready made nodes. If that is your example of the largest economic merchant than that is a very poor example. What do you assume their yearly revenue is ? >Several prominent figures in the Bitcoin social media space are backing it (Kratter/Mechanic/Simply Bitcoin). People with 100s of thousands of followers and millions of views combined. More social media influencers who have more viewers are either nuetral or opposed to BIP110 by a long shot. There is so little support from companies that they are having to lie and just make up a fake list filled with misinformation https://x.com/i/status/2071017378536648993 https://x.com/SuperTestnet/status/2071078883768582185 and worded in a way that is misleading >sure, but it’s not nothing. Agreed , there are real users that support BIP110 . No one is denying that but this come back to my original question .... Should 15% of nodes be able to coerce the remaining nodes with threats of a reorg to get their way ? Do you believe that is justified?

FieryButPeaceful09

12,000 nodes and companies like Start9, one of the largest companies selling retail ready make node servers are publicly backing BIP-110. Several prominent figures in the Bitcoin social media space are backing it (Kratter/Mechanic/Simply Bitcoin). People with 100s of thousands of followers and millions of views combined. It’s not everybody or even a majority, sure, but it’s not nothing.

7ivor

BIP110 breaks scaling solutions while failing to block spam, if anything it just pushes people to more harmful versions. Spam sucks, but BIP110 is a poorly written and shortsighted response. [Here's a list of multiple posts explaining various technical issues.](https://x.com/i/status/2030310642306232639) [Here's a good thread from that list explaining specific technical issues about how it negatively impacts scaling and fails to prevent spam.](https://x.com/i/status/2020594400955695442)

bitusher

>You seem to be of the understanding that larger miners are in control of the network. No , I agree with the reality that economic nodes have more control than miners which is why I worked with Luke and others with UASF148 There really just isn't a lot of economic support for BIP110 either >The nodes are the soul of the network and right now approximately 15% Again , you can't weigh all nodes the same , especially when a speculation attack occurs. This is all very old lessons from the blocksize wars

Search327

All I here from people against it are " it sucks"! Please explain! From what I understand it sounds like the BIP 110 intent is to remove spam data from transactions.

bitusher

> Still I think the original statement “zero large economic node support” is not accurate given I never suggested this but I see you are referring to someone else. It does beg the question what is an example of the largest economic support they have ? Perhaps "Ocean" ? That running Datum doesn't exclusively support BIP110 though. Do you have another example of a large exchange, merchant , pool , merchant processor , or hodler that supports BIP110 ? The largest I can think of is a very small mining farm like barefoot mining. >with those kind of numbers there is not an insignificant level of support. Should 15% of nodes be able to coerce the remaining nodes with threats of a reorg to get their way ? Do you believe that is justified? >have been activist censoring/banning this topic, creating an echo chamber and perhaps giving you the false censorship excuse is moot because we have been discussing/debating this topic of spam since 2011 and op_return since 2014 an naseum . Even in subs like this that are famous for moderation/censorship (in this case it would be justified because its clear that luke will likely create a altcoin with a hard fork soon ) have allowed many BIP110 posts occur over and over again.

FieryButPeaceful09

Generally I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying. Still I think the point the statement “zero large economic node support” is not accurate given the uptake of BIP-110 signalling. Whether 20 or 50% of the \~12,000 nodes signalling for it today are economic, or pass whatever sniff test you want to impose, the fact is with those kind of numbers there is not an insignificant level of support. Kratter/Mechanic and co have reached a fair amount of bitcoiners whether you like it or not. And yes I realise that the overall % of Bitcoiners is small, but we’re talking about node runners here’s Places like this Reddit community have been activist censoring/banning this topic, creating an echo chamber and perhaps giving you the false sense of a lack of grassroot support for the proposal. I’m actually surprised this thread is still open.

bitusher

> what you’re saying is BIP148 had wider support in premise but not at the technical detail level. No , segwit had wide support as a whole but some businesses/miners wanted more , segwit + more weight, hence segwit2x >Sounds a lot like the situation now where almost everybody agrees spam=bad but disagrees about how to fix it. This is not a new topic. We have been debating/discussing spam since 2011 and op_return since 2014 >Growth of the BIP-110 nodes to 12,000 looks pretty organic to me, 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 To be fair , plenty of non economic nodes exist running Bitcoin core as well. Which is precisely why developers reached out directly to exchanges , merchants , wallets , merchant processors directly to try and get a rough idea of consensus before attempting to activate segwit . BIP110 mainly relies only on node count instead and there is not any good evidence there is a lot of UTXOs or transaction activity behind those BIP110 nodes. If anything from my conversations of BIP110 users and the way nodes are being promoted they often are treating as a way to "vote" instead of sending and receiving all their UTXOs. I have no idea whether its 20%, 40%, or 80% of the nodes are sybil nodes. It also depends how you define a sybil node too because There is good evidence that many BIP110 supporters are simply spinning up non economic full nodes to "vote" which some would call a type of sybil node. IMHO, I imagine there might be less than 10-20% of these full nodes that are economic (sending and receiving UTXOs) >We’re at what now 15% of the network or something and growing every day. Even if you assume that all 15% are not sybil (good evidence reflects otherwise) and are all are economic (good evidence suggests otherwise) , 15% of node count does not mean 15% of Bitcoin users. This is because most Bitcoin users do not run their own full node so a political movement of a passionate minority can spin up a bunch of nodes to make it seem like they represent a larger part of the Bitcoin ecosystem than they actually represent.

FieryButPeaceful09

How is patching the taproot exploit and putting the lid back on OP\_Return going to “gimp” Bitcoin? Luke is not in control of the network, it’s a temporary soft fork merge request that every open source project is open to. And he didn’t even make the BIP it was Dathan Ohm. Or wait you only think Core or other approved person can make changes? Sounds like an authoritarian take to me.

FieryButPeaceful09

So what you’re saying is BIP148 had wider support in premise but not at the technical detail level. Sounds a lot like the situation now where almost everybody agrees spam=bad but disagrees about how to fix it. Growth of the BIP-110 nodes to 12,000 looks pretty organic to me, I see no huge jumps in the numbers in say 1 day or from one actor. We’re at what now 15% of the network or something and growing every day.

bitusher

There is a big difference because BIP148 was only one of many implementations supporting segwit. Core and all the other common implementations supported segwit. The only dispute was around adding more blockweight in addition to segwit , thus segwit2x . The group of people that really opposed segwit where 20-100 people following Mircea Popescu and they opposed all changes . Most the bikeshedding of hf vs sf to increase the blocksize mainly came later and wasn't directly related to opposing segwit itself This is completely different than BIP110 which has a small fraction of 1% support of Bitcoin users

bitusher

I personally hate spam but this proposal does not help. BIP110 supporters often don't seem to understand how many ways there exists to hide spam on Bitcoin unless you make Bitcoin a centralized permissioned ledger. Than they use this fact to suggest we are apathetic or we like spam which is untrue because there are effective ways to reduce spam that don't have all these consequences. I have always hated nfts, spam, inscriptions , and ordinals, just like many developers do. Even hated when luke was spamming bible verses in the blockchain (location does not matter as adding data in the coinbase does increase tx and blocksize just the same) Here are 3 solutions : 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. 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. 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 . Those are 3 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.

bitusher

u/ajr1788 What BIP110 is trying to do is much different as explained in this summary: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking like a curated platform and this sets a precedent where a 55% majority can decide that your valid transaction is "spam" simply because they dislike the use case -It doesn't actually solve the problem - As Peter Todd demonstrated these filters are easily bypassed as he successfully embedded the entire 6,000-word text of BIP 110 into a single transaction by fragmenting the data across multiple 256-byte PUSHDATA elements and 83-byte OP_RETURNs so this proves the fork doesn't stop data it only increases the transaction fee "tax" for users -Incentivizes Centralizing BlockSpace Market - Capping the public relay at 83 bytes forces high-volume data users to bypass the P2P network and instead pay large mining pools directly via private APIs to include "illegal" non-standard data which creates a private blockspace market that small home-node miners cannot see or profit from -Risk of confiscation / disruption to backwards compatibility - As Gregory Maxwell noted Bitcoin nodes have no "global state" of pre-signed transactions so if a user has a multi-year inheritance plan or a "Vault" emergency exit signed offline that uses a 500-byte script or an OP_IF branch BIP 110 welds that exit shut and since the transaction is now consensus-invalid the funds are effectively confiscated for the duration of the fork -Anti-Scaling (Kills eltoo/ln-symmetry) - BIP 110 explicitly invalidates the Taproot Annex which directly blocks the ln-symmetry upgrade which is the industry's best hope for a Lightning Network that dramatically reduces the need for constant watchtower monitoring and enables simpler multi-party channels -Creates UTXO bloat - BIP 110 incentivizes spammers to hide data inside fake addresses/UTXOs (like multisig-encoded data) and while an OP_RETURN can be ignored by a lean node, a fake UTXO must be tracked by every node forever so BIP 110 intended to "save" nodes but actually creates a more expensive permanent burden on them -Breaks Miniscript & Vaults - Miniscript is the industry standard for writing readable secure smart contracts (used for inheritance, multi-party escrow, timelocked recovery) and relies heavily on OP_IF to branch between conditions so by banning OP_IF in Tapscripts BIP 110 effectively breaks Taproot-based custody setups that represent the direction the entire industry is moving -Lobotomizes BitVM - BitVM is one of very few viable paths to trustless Layer 2 bridges and requires deep "Taproot Trees" (Merkle paths) to verify computation and a 257-byte limit caps the tree depth at roughly 7 levels (128 leaves) when BitVM protocols often require thousands of leaves to function -Loss in fees for miners - If you filter out the highest paying transactions because you don't like their content you are effectively asking miners to take a pay cut which could lower the "hash price" and as block subsidy continues to halve transaction fees become increasingly critical to security -Rushed Timeline / Governance Precedent - BIP 110 activates unconditionally by September 2026 regardless of support with early activation possible at just 55% signaling within a tiny 3-month window and this "emergency" style of governance is a radical departure from Bitcoin's traditional 90%+ consensus model, if rushed "emergency" consensus changes become normalized that governance precedent is permanent even if the technical changes expire ------------ "We need to stop data on bitcoin because there could be viruses and grandma could get infected!" But on-chain data just sits there as inert bytes that no node ever executes, and bitcoin isn't a file network, so there's no path by which verifying the chain runs or installs anything. "We need to stop all spam on bitcoin!" But you can't prevent arbitrary data from being embedded, and the BIP itself admits this because it says all you do is force people to disguise the data as financial data or break it into multiple pushes. "We need to slow down spam on bitcoin!" But 110 doesn't stop spam and the authors concede that, so all it really does is pick which data survives, because it restores the 83 byte OP_RETURN limit that Runes already fit inside while it guts inscriptions. "We need to make it harder for spammers to spam on bitcoin!" But forcing data off OP_RETURN and into disguised outputs can make the footprint worse, because provably unspendable OP_RETURN can be pruned while disguised script data sticks around and bloats what every node has to keep. "We need to signal to spammers that we don't want spam on bitcoin!" But arbitrary data has been on bitcoin since the genesis block when Satoshi embedded the Times headline about the bank bailout. "But spam is bad and bitcoin is money!" But we already knew and agree spam sucks and that bitcoin was money because it has a price ticker, and that's been the main use case to date.

bitusher

The MASF of BIP110 looks like a total failure https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling which is dropping from 0.8% to 0.4 % and now at 0.1% so far this period and it was clear they are even renting hashrate to boost those numbers. You must mean to possibly indicate a UAHF with a PoW change that Luke keeps mentioning creating some obscure altcoin mined with gpus with low security that can be attacked by botnets and small gpus farms ?

FieryButPeaceful09

How many nodes signalled for BIP-148? Do you even run a node?

PublikStatik

Yeah, the quantum threat is real. And I agree that AI will supercharge the speed of new discoveries.  Given that we’re dealing with a blockchain, it is critical that the right BIPs are implemented to allow for migrations to quantum secure addresses. There have already been proposals. But I think the consensus is we dont want to introduce the BIP too early before post quantum cryptography standards have started to form — or too late for people to start migrating their wallets. Especially with Bitcoin, I invest what I can afford to lose. And I know there is a lot of interest in not seeing the network implode. But it’ll be a wild ride the next few years. I’m excited to watch this story play out.

Prestigious-Buddy539

BIP110 dead chain incoming. These retards are going to fork themselves off into oblivion. ZERO pool support and zero large economic node support.

7ivor

It's an IQ test. Anyone for BIP110 has failed the test and doesn't actually understand how bitcoin works. Especially the ones claiming it's going to succeed if people don't run a URSF. Just a complete lack of understanding of how blocks are added to the chain and how forks would resolve.

CloudLeading1502

There are dozens of similar projects that were well-intentioned and resulted in loss of funds and I'm concerned that you used an LLM to reply to my initial comment, which to me signals that you aren't interested in a serious discussion. I would urge anyone coming across such projects to instead look at established, widely-used, reproducible tools such as a hardware wallet, Ian Coleman's BIP39 tool (offline), or SeedTool to name a few. "I reviewed it and it looks correct" is not a strong enough standard, and the bar for trusting any single unaudited generator with your savings is "DON'T"!

Large-Cress900

Ian Coleman's BIP39 tool is a great project and has been around for years. I'm not trying to replace it or suggest this is a better alternative. This started as a personal project that I decided to rewrite from scratch because I wasn't happy with the original implementation anymore. My focus was on an offline mnemonic generator with optional supplemental entropy, built-in self-tests and code that's easy to inspect and review. As for the "vibe coded" comment, I don't think that's a technical criticism. Whether AI was involved somewhere during development doesn't determine whether software is correct or secure. If you see a design flaw, a cryptographic mistake or an implementation bug, please point it out. That's exactly why I shared the project here. I'd much rather discuss concrete technical issues than labels.

user_name_checks_out

> Silent Payments (BIP352), JoinMarket-NG, Taproot channels on LND — I see that em dash. Hello ChatGPT. > Which part feels like 2014 to you? Genuinely curious. [link](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uh1qbe/your_bitcoin_is_being_watched_how_chain_analysis/ou5e5mk/): > Your ChatGPT generated article says that Samourai Whirlpool is one of the three main CoinJoin implementations in 2026 but Samourai closed down in early 2024. > Your ChatGPT gnerated article says that Wasabi Wallet uses a centralized zkSNACKs coordinator but the zkSNACKs coordinator actually shut down in the summer of 2024 and users have been able to manually choose what coordinator they wish to use since then. > Your ChatGPT generated article doesn't even mention Ginger Wallet which launched in the summer of 2024, has a built in CoinJoin implementation and is still operating in 2026.

Large-Cress900

Silent Payments (BIP352), JoinMarket-NG, Taproot channels on LND — all 2025-2026. Which part feels like 2014 to you? Genuinely curious.

Large-Cress900

Not AI generated — I run a full LND node and wrote this from real experience. "Not up to date" — what specifically? JoinMarket-NG (HRF funded Q1 2026), Silent Payments BIP352 live on Sparrow and Cake Wallet, Wasabi 2.x with zkSNACKs coordinator — all current. Tell me what's outdated and I'll address it.

coindigest

Solid writeup, but it's selling the timeline way harder than the tech supports. The keystone of this whole thesis, OP\_CAT, isn't live. It's BIP-347 and it's been stuck for years with no broad consensus and not even a scheduled activation attempt. As of mid-2026 literally zero soft forks have reached deployment since Taproot in 2021. So "natively trustless settlement engine" is a roadmap, not a description of what exists today. Where the post is actually right: BitVM2 is real and in production, Citrea's Clementine bridge went live on mainnet back in January. Credit there. But calling it "trustless" glosses over the catch: BitVM2's security rests on dispute economics. Challenges get paid in Bitcoin blockspace, so if fees spike during a challenge window an honest challenger can get priced out, which is exactly why these setups lean on overcollateralization and watchtower services. That's a genuine unsolved tradeoff, not a finished trustless system. The irony is that a post opening with "strip away the marketing noise" and then declaring the "cryptographic death of altcoins" is itself the marketing. The direction is legit and Bitcoin programmability is genuinely moving forward, but the altcoin-scaling-is-dead victory lap is years early and hinges on a soft fork that might never get consensus.

Appropriate-Talk-735

Thanks for posting. Will it work with BIP-110 also?

DarrelXero

Correct, the biggest supporter, and most likely creator, of BIP110 does not signal for BIP110 in the blocks for the templates they provide outside of DATUM users. But in order to run a DATUM gateway it requires a knots node. And even if you just point your hashrate at Ocean and use their templates you are being served templates through a knots node. Thus, if you use Ocean you are supporting knots. That's not a decision that should be forced on anyone.

Aggravating-Map-293

BIP-110

Mooks79

So? BIP39 is public, as are the list of words, of course it can.

kirovreported

How cleverly a two-day-old redditor smeared BIP-110 and Ocean, mentioning their alleged connection to KYC.

SaltyProfession2020

Récupération Seed Phrase 1-3 mots manquants (4x H100) Service professionnel de brute-force sur seed BIP39. No recovery = No fee. Spécialisé dans les cas où il manque 1, 2 ou 3 mots. Matériel puissant → résultats rapides. Contactez-moi en MP si vous avez une seed partielle + adresse du wallet. Seulement les cas sérieux.

BryantNielson-QCI

The important development here is real, but the framing is overheated. The White House order sets federal migration deadlines for high-value systems. It does not declare that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer will arrive by 2030. The dates reflect long migration lead times, sensitive data lifecycles and the cost of replacing legacy systems. Bitcoin developers are also working on the problem, but BIP-360 and BIP-361 are proposals, not deployed protections. BIP-360 introduces a possible quantum-resistant output structure. BIP-361 proposes a phased sunset of vulnerable ECDSA and Schnorr outputs after a post-quantum path exists. Neither has network-wide activation or consensus today. The 34% figure should be described carefully too. It refers to coins associated with revealed public keys under a particular counting method. It does not mean 34% of Bitcoin can be stolen today, and it does not prove that all of those coins are lost or attributable to Satoshi. So the real story is less cinematic: The government has accelerated its migration timetable. Bitcoin now has serious migration proposals. The unresolved issue is whether the network can agree on how to protect active users without creating an ownership crisis around dormant coins. That is significant enough without calling it panic or pretending the code is already live.

sylsau

The U.S. Government just declared a hard 2030 deadline to migrate federal systems to post-quantum cryptography. The "harvest-now, decrypt-later" threat is no longer theoretical. The state is panicking. But guess what? Bitcoin devs have been shipping code to fight this since February. BIP-360 and BIP-361 are already live in the repository, leveraging the exact same NIST-approved primitives the White House is now scrambling to mandate. The cypherpunks didn't wait for a presidential directive. But with 34% of the total BTC supply sitting in quantum-vulnerable legacy addresses—including Satoshi’s 1.7M coin stash—the clock is ticking. Bitcoin doesn't have a CEO. It has a consensus problem. Do we freeze the ancient coins to save the network, or do we let the quantum wolves hunt? The ultimate boss battle of decentralized governance has officially begun. Are your sats safe? 🧵👇

FieryButPeaceful09

How is patching 2-3 known spam attack vectors but the possibility of there still be 1 spam attack vector (which is valid with both BIP-110 and non BIP-110 rules btw) painting the door red? And you didn’t answer your question, what is your proposal? Sounds like the nihilistic appeal to technical authority with zero substance we’ve all come to expect from the spam apologists. Trouble is it doesn’t work when your held to account. Care to explain how’s this damage would come about that I can’t probably comprehend? Or is linking to that article your entire argument? Outstanding impudence. Think we’ve found a spammer.

BaldBear_13

Lol. Proper post-quantum solution will be implemented across entire Bitcoin network as a new BIP, it will take couple years to get everybody to agree on the a specific solution, and then another few months for hardware makers to release a firmware upgrade, which you should download directly from their website.

__Ken_Adams__

When you import a non-Electrum seed into Electrum you have to choose the option to tell it you're importing a BIP39 seed instead of an Electrum seed.

whatwilly0ubuild

Bagpipe in the wordlist plus your phrase getting rejected by Metamask and Electrum points hard at Monero. Monero doesn't use BIP39, it uses its own 25 word mnemonic where the 25th word is a checksum of the other 24, which is exactly why BIP39 tools spit it back at you. If it's 13 words it's the older short Monero scheme, same idea. To check, grab the official Monero GUI or CLI, choose restore wallet from seed, and paste it in. If the checksum word is valid it'll accept it immediately, and that alone confirms what you've got. Then it has to scan the chain to find your balance, so set a restore height around when you think you made it to save yourself a multi hour sync, or set it low and let it grind if you have no clue. The old wallet still works fine despite all the hard forks since, the seed math didn't change. One thing I'll be blunt about, do not type that phrase into any seed checker or wallet finder website, ever. Those things exist to drain exactly this situation, someone finding an old seed and pasting it somewhere to see what it is. Download the official binaries, verify the hashes, and ideally do the restore on a machine that's offline for the check. If there's anything on that wallet, the website crowd will empty it before you finish reading their results page. Worst case it's a few bucks of old crypto, best case the chain scan surprises you, but either way keep the damn seed off random sites.

nonkeywayzee

What makes you believe they care about this thing working? This whole BIP is a fight for identity, it has never been a technical thing, it is about how they feel about other people using freedom money in ways they don't like.

bitusher

> Your example shows that BIP110 makes the spam larger and as a result, more expensive. More expensive and far more damaging to the network than spam in OP_Return. Some spammers will always spam Bitcoin because we are the most secure blockchain that has good transaction finality and will likely still be around in many years unlike altcoins that pump and dump. Additionally, others will always spam Bitcoin regardless the price as an attack on the network. So spam is inevitable and cannot be stopped . The question is do we reduce spam by simply using Bitcoin more as money (what I prefer) or with these band aids that barely work as a deterrence and simply encourage more harmful forms of spam

bitusher

> BIP110 reduces spam. It doesn't remove the worst kine and most prevalent form of spam called Runes, additionally it will just as easily make much worse spam if it ever gets adopted , which will never happen

AlabamaHotPocketses

Admittedly, yes I was a bit quick on the draw with that comment, adding no value at all, so let respond properly this time round. Firstly, sounds like you are saying shouldn’t close or raise the cost of existing methods because new ones might be found? I don’t think that’s a reason to do nothing, by that logic you never patch anything. Surely raising the cost of cheap, high-volume paths is a win? The fact that a determined dev can still hand-craft one image doesn’t change that. Secondly, I think the example you provided can be interpreted as evidence in support of BIP110. Your example shows that BIP110 makes the spam larger and as a result, more expensive. If spam demand responds to price at all, then more expensive means less of it. You are demonstrating that the deterrent works. Unless you are implying that spammers are price insensitive and will pay at any cost forever.