Reddit Posts
A very balanced article about BIP-110 by Jason Hughes - VP, Development and Engineering at Ocean Mining, yes the pool signalling for BIP-110
The 55% Trap: How BIP-110 Threatens to Fracture Bitcoin.
SlowCoin-A fully decentralized currency
Bitcoin's ZK Awakening: The Cryptographic Death of the Altcoin Scaling Narrative.
Bitcoin's ZK Awakening: The Cryptographic Death of the Altcoin Scaling Narrative. Strip away the marketing noise. Here is the uncompromising technical blueprint of how Taproot, BitVM, and OP_CAT are turning the base layer into a natively trustless settlement engine.
shibpost.com (shitposting on dogecoin)
15 Years Ago, Hal Finney Explained Why Bitcoin Could Not Simply Be Replaced
Entrando en corto ! La OP anterior cerró profit. Vamos vamos carajooo activos 🎯🎯
The Dead Man's Switch: How to Program a Trustless Bitcoin Inheritance Using OP_CSV. Trusting an estate lawyer with your keys means surrendering your wealth. How to use relative time-locks to build a trustless, algorithmic will.
The Dead Man's Switch: How to Program a Trustless Bitcoin Inheritance Using OP_CSV.
The Dead Man's Switch: How to Program a Trustless Bitcoin Inheritance Using OP_CSV. Trusting an estate lawyer with your keys means surrendering your wealth. How to use relative time-locks to build a trustless, algorithmic will.
Mentions
It’s literally doing the same 4 year cycle thing to a tee so far. We’ll see what happens later in the year. OP needs to learn what the 4 year cycle is and what the patterns are before posting.
So if you're smart enough that you already know it's promoting and partnering with scam that you should never use you probably wouldn't even ask question like OP asked in the first place. However if a newbie asks question like that they should never be directed into ledger.
Dude is a 20 year old college student who struggled in his first year, and couldn't get into any of the finance clubs at his university, plus fellow students don't like him at college (an actual post which he deleted, but it's the internet, so not really). His most posted sub is budget fashion reps. So yep, OP is just seeking attention.
OP after making 16m off the sound advice of crypto articles https://i.redd.it/sqwi31g6ageh1.gif
OP is saying that in the future the gov will be powerful and bold enough to hunt you down for transacting in Bitcoin or anything outside of their system. Bitcoin is not anonymous enough to stop this to my knowledge. Although I imagine there’s ways. I also strongly believe that if the world gets to this point the gov will be tracking down millions of people (unsustainable) and citizens will not allow it to happen and would revolt. Plus if any entity is bold enough to try something like this I think we will be facing much larger issues as a society.
What I don’t get with you AI slop posters is how you think that this shit reads well? Looks at OP’s history ‘Built an AI bot that explains why crypto is moving…..’. Lmao, no you didn’t- you wrote a couple of lines in a prompt to draft generic bullshit like this.
Bitcoin Core has not changed the relay policy. V30 only changed a default setting. Everybody can run whatever relay policy they want. Even before v30 was released, there were enough nodes that relayed large OP\_RETURNs. Who is that "centralized interest" you mentioned? Consensus can never be changed by a minority. Only if a majority agrees with a consensus rule change, will it be successful.
It's so fun being part of this project, it's like early crypto all over again. Having had watched the hashrate increase "in real time", and trying to figure out who/what/where was doing this was exciting. Just in case it wasnt clear from OP: Browsercoin didnt get hacked or attacked or anything like that, athe algo was safe, nobody lost anything. Just a few guys figured out you could outmine the CPU's using GPU's, which was supposedly not supposed to happen. The dev instantly went to work to figure out a new algo to fit the mission goal of "CPUs first!". The community tests showed the new algo should work, and soon we'll find out on the main net! Will again be an interesting time! :)
OP, this is good advice. Learning about the nature of money and why Bitcoin is important in that context will enable you to decide if you want to invest in it. Without that understanding it'll be hard for you to build any long term conviction around it.
Guessing OP went all in and his feelings were hurt.
Sure hope the OP is right. Feels like another 90 days of pain at a minimum
Fighting in the open. Yeah, this one mobilized everyone, and the GPU miners paid for it out of their pocket. The result: advanced GPU miners are motivating the network to become even stronger and more fair to consumer devices. Fair game. The core values of this experiment is what matters in the end and drives it forward: - low barrier for entry for consumer devices, - hardware equality. OP, what are your future plans on dealing with distributed botnets and/or phone farms? As I understand, they are in a way indistinguishable from fair mining pools.
I think OP is just wondering if there was ever any public follow-up. It was a pretty bizarre incident, and considering how many people were reportedly affected, it's reasonable to be curious whether anyone ended up with lasting injuries or if there were any legal consequences afterward
If OP is saying something by the picture being blank I could understand that opinion but he may have posted a picture that didn't show up and I could also see that opinion because I believe right now Bitcoin is at its turning point to go back up. Coin along with many many many other crypto coins have the moving averages for the one year length mostly in order from largest down to smallest and some including Bitcoin have the smaller moving averages already moving up through the larger ones. We all know when the 50 day moving average brakes through the 100 that is a golden cross however prior to that all the moving averages must be lined up from smallest at the bottom to largest on top so the smallest can in order break through larger ones. This is already happening with the majority of crypto that is down much so I think right now is the turnaround point. But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong however I heavily consider the moving averages when I'm make purchasing decisions on stock and cryptocurrency and it's part of my investing plan to follow that stuff because I think the fundamentals of its show a lot of information in different ways.
Hunter Beast-- I assume that's the same knots supporter from twitter that has been leaking apparent plans to perform a quadratic sighashing attack against Bitcoin on shortly after 110 forks off ever since cguida and luke-jr began their out of nowhere fud posting against BIP54 (the long overdue and slow progressing bip that address the quadratic sighashing bug and other vulnerabilities). Not sure that most people care about the governance opinions of arsonists. :P 110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.
/r/cryptocurrency used to post the prices of the most common cryptos but recently stopped. I think it was for the same reason as the OP. It can get addicting checking prices.
What are you doing man?! You dont talk about it. Thats it I'm selling everything. OP fucked it up.
Bigger chance to be remembered than a generic Indian like OP lol
Listen to these experienced investors OP!
OP is a strong candidate for today’s winner. 🥇.
Wow thanks OP now only because of this post I will buy 1,000,000,000 USDT worth of AuroraCoin To the moon!!!
You've been breathing in too much wildfire smoke OP? 🔥
OP's watched some YouTube videos. Of course he does.
Yep many people have done the same thing as OP in the past and are now financially free. How many more examples do people need before they stop talking shit?
OP the type of person who thinks they understand how things work but are constantly angry from missing out on every opportunity.
OP sounds mad about something lol
OP in 10 years: Need Help Recovering my Seed Phrase!
Absolutely. He's getting a bunch of flak in there for being leveraged (and I get it, it's risky), but traditionally, bitcoin has done really well and like you said, any time it's around the 200wMA, it's a great time to buy. I wish I had thrown a lot more into bitcoin when I started years ago. Funny- if I would have done something like this when I got in- I'd be retired now. I say take the risk when you can, especially if OP is younger.
Exactly. OP brought this upon their self.
This is the right answer (for this particular investor)! If OP doesn’t know why greater than 10% in Bitcoin is preferable in the eyes of others they can A. Do whatever is right for them. Or B. Learn why Bitcoiners have such unshakable confidence in it.
I read OPs post and it got me thinking. Bitcoin will definitely be around for quite a long time. That is of course unless some massive scam occurs, one bad enough and large enough to scare the majority of, or vast majority of bitcoin owners into selling. Aside from it being the original and the largest, it allows everyone from the common criminal to the Mafia, cartel leaders, and even governments like Iran to circumvent laws trade and banking laws, as well as the foreign exchange market. One can now purchase white, gray, and black market goods and services from anywhere in the world. Even if investors like OP and probably every other person that reads this comment were to sell all their bitcoin, shady government money (does “bb” mean billions like “mm” means millions, I wonder), cartel money, that of any person/entity that wants anonymity (so maybe investors too, but those super rich ones who can’t get by well enough to suite their liking by only buying enough priceless art to fill three museums), et cetera will not. Then there is the money put into bitcoin short term to complete purchases which consequently generates daily trading (lots??) which helps to stabilize the market if there were any insecurity. I’m an accountant, I am not in finance and I have so little personal experience that is best to say I have none. The only securities that I own are those that Fidelity has chosen for my IRA. Nonetheless, these are the thoughts I had after reading OP’s post. Are my thoughts on this correct, or at least on track? There’s no way that it’s 100% correct, but hopefully my understanding isn’t too far off and the theory is sound. Please let me know. Unless I’m way off base, I think I’ll throw a couple thousand dollars at bitcoin as an experiment. I might as well ask this too. As somebody with zero experience with Blockchain as well as the stock market, what service should I use to get a digital wallet and buy and sell bitcoin? Many thanks!
This is misleading at least , by default datacarriersize size for OP_return in my core v31 is lower than the default of knots . Core backed off many months ago and left the config to the users with a couple seconds of effort
You have massive balls OP! Play it smart and you may be ok. Much better than most folk just entering.
OP ignore the jealous comments, in 1 year you’ll be thrilled u did this
What incentive do I have to lie about 4 properties. Why wouldn’t I just say 104 then? The subject of OP’s post was selling an apartment I was simply echoing I did the same thing, I had 4 at one point, not that unheard of to have 4 properties. Regarding the price of bitcoin or any asset someone holds, not very profound to think if you’re holding that asset you’d prefer to hold it while it’s up and not be as thrilled when it’s down, but those are simply numbers on a screen. I started buying bitcoin in 2017, I’ve seen it up and down, I’m not emotional about the price. I buy more when it’s down. If you don’t have conviction in an investment (Bitcoin or any other) you’ll have a hard time buying when it’s down, since my conviction remains high, I continue to buy.
the OP said he sold an apartment? how could they have done that without owning it first? also in my country for example there is no tax on selling a property if you owned it for more than 5 years
110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.
Are you capable of having an independent thought, OP? Do you dress yourself in the morning, brush you own teeth, and wipe your own ass, or do you need a chatbot and Reddit to do those for you too?
I'm on your side OP, 27 years is a long time, and the power of compounding is insane over a period like that. You almost have 1 BTC and by that time 1 BTC could be worth $10M. I think $16M is a bit much, but you could easily have $5M and be well above other people.
110 is a solidly bad proposal, which attempts unsuccessfully to solve yesterdays problems, and has been pushed forward with a bad process. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about it's benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (dumb text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in testnet. I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.
OP_RETURN's size hadn't changed in more than 10 years, what changed was the default relay policy that was being bypassed already.
One of the best arguments I’ve heard for why larger OP\_R size is detrimental to bitcoin was from Matthew Kratter, if someone were to append CP to the OP\_R, all nodes on the network would by default be storing CP material. I’ll leave it to your imagination what local jurisdictions would want to do with those hard drives.
Why would and improvement proposal that limits the OP\_RETURN give shitcoin vibes? Wouldn't shitcoiners (or people like them) want to maximize the OP\_RETURN so they can spam it?
For example, you can set up a P2TR wallet so that you can use the keypath, but the script tree contains a leaf your heirs can spend from after a UTXO is one year old. You could even construct that leaf as a decaying multisig, where all your heirs together can spend after a shorter period, and a smaller subset of them can spend after more time. In this setup, your heirs would already hold the key material, but be unaware of the actual output script construction, making them unable to track your wallet’s activity on-chain, and allowing you to switch the setup unilaterally. A descriptor of this wallet would be included in multiple redundant communication methods, e.g., an email triggered by a deadman switch, your will, and a letter to them kept in your home. If leaked to a third party, the descriptor only confers a privacy loss, but does not enable the third party to steal funds. Meanwhile, you can keep other script leaves private by only sharing the relevant branch of the script tree with the corresponding heirs, and if you move your funds once a year, the heirs cannot spend your funds, even if they learn the descriptor before you pass. To pack such a decaying multisig into a single leaf, you need \`OP\_IF\`, and claims that there would never be a reason to use \`OP\_IF\` in a P2TR leafscript are categorically false. It is also impossible to prove that nobody is using such a setup.
wtf is this ? The whole point is if the miners don’t adopt the new software it doesn’t pass, bottom line OP did you hit your head
Sorry OP, been busy watching the LAB crash🤣
No need, Bitcoin solved the problem back in 2009, OP is just another problem, like you and me.
I dont necessarily blame OP, I work in a CPA office and half the office came in bragging about their SPCX IPO purchases. These are people that have the knowledge to know better than fomoing into an overvalued hype fueled trade.
The next thing that is hyped to astronomical levels and is at a top. That is clearly his investing strategy. I dont necessarily blame OP, I work in a CPA office and half the office came in bragging about their SPCX IPO purchases. These are people that have the knowledge to know better than fomoing into an overvalued hype fueled trade.
thank you for taking the time to answer. just last question if you don't mind me asking : what kind of tapscripts you want to be able to use with OP_IF? I want to know, because it's a new thing to me that I never knew existed until this day, and I respect you and understand you if you prefer to not share that for privacy reasons
1. I want to be able to use `OP_IF` in Tapscripts. 2. I want to be able to encode more potential script leaves in script trees than permitted by BIP110. 3. I want softforks to be able to make use of OP_SUCCESS in the next next year. 4. The "temporary" nature of BIP110 is an obvious bait and switch. Many RDTS proponents publicly advocate for making the rules permanent the moment after BIP110 activates. This would greatly hamper Bitcoin’s future. 5. BIP110 is poorly motivated, shoddily developed, and recklessly championed. I disagree on principle with a minority imposing its will on Bitcoin in this hazardous manner. 6. I’m not interested in NFTs or embedding large amounts of data on Bitcoin. Painting all opponents of BIP110 as spam supporters is a No-True-Scotsman fallacy. Use of that argument should be appropriately discredited.
It's hard to say what 110 is really about. Sometimes it's proponents say it's about stopping spam, but when it's pointed out that it very much doesn't (ordinals/inscriptions already has an update to avoid it, e.g.) they pivot to saying it's not about spam. The substance of it is that it *radically* restricts transactions-- it removes OP_IF, it removes the facility for safe upgrades (OP_SUCCESS), it even cuts out the very first script type used in Bitcoin, pay to pubkey. The reason it does this is that it's trying to close down ways to put extra data in transactions. But inherently you can't because transactions have to contain things like keys and signatures and hashes that can just be made arbitrary data because they're random numbers. An effect of shutting off these things is that it'll cause funds loss-- if you pay to an address that use those feature (e.g. created before 110) those funds will be gone. Or if you've got a timelock where the presigned spend uses them, again funds gone. Every past soffork since Satoshi has put a lot of effort into not accidentally confiscating anyone's funds, but in this case the authors of it just don't care. And when people have complained they've just ignored it or denied it. The other effect is to hamper bitcoin's flexibility-- want secure your families inheritance with a 3 of 6 multisig where each key has a backup? It blocks that because it removes OP_IF and limits script tree depth to 7 (instead of 128). From logs people have sent me from the author's discord I feel comfortable saying that the real purpose of the proposal is to "fire core"-- similarly to Bcash. In order to do so the proposal had to be intentionally bad and overbroad. Had they just proposed capping op_return to 510 bytes, there are good odds that if there was popular support for that that the bitcoin development community would sign on too, and fail to achieve the desired effect. But in any case, it's just a crappy proposal. And it's crappyness is seems to be generally reflected by the fact that it's not supported by people with skin in the game. I think it's pretty telling that none of the 110 supporters will accept offers to do a zero-trust non-110-coin for 110-coin coinswap.
This article is from February 5, 2026. What the fuck are you doing OP?
> 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.
For the people confused, click or tap the screen image and it reveals what OP is trying to show us
Not sure how you lose when all you have to do is DCA and wait. Glad you touched on the greed motivations Sorry for your loss OP
Maybe my brain is fried after hanging out on Twitter too much, but I've read the OP twice and took a glance on the linked website, and still don't understand what is being proposed in practical terms. Maybe distil your idea(s) a bit more for simpletons like me?
All you do is scream bullshit and fail to engage. OP\_IF is an intentional and important feature. Without it any conditional logic in scripts has an exponential blowup. So if there are 16 conditions in a script you'd end up with 2^16 = 65536 leafs to represent it without IF (and then 110 also restricts scripts to depth \_7\_ so such scripts just become impossible). IF is also space efficient if a condition is smaller than 66 bytes then making it an extra leaf makes the transaction larger, requiring higher fees and creating blockchain bloat. But even if it wasn't necessary it's used in people's scripts today so to take it away results in funds loss when an address that uses it gets (re)used, including as a result of time locks. > on the other hand there are plenty of claims that were debunked, such as the bip will break LN, or it will freeze funds, all bs. No they weren't debunked, but rather the high priests of 110 simply asserted they weren't true without evidence, -- even though they were shown otherwise. (And even knew in advance, luke knew before writing the proposal that other people used timelocks the proposal would destroy to secure their funds-- including myself! but he probably considers the loss a virtue because in his full on psychotic fugue he blames random other people for his coin loss).
OP_Daily Newsletter: https://substack.com/@bitcoinpark BTC Breakdown: https://www.btcbreakdown.com/
I am not reading that word salad and knowing that nullc is Greg himself I am not interested in his opinion either. When I say it was never debunked I mean the arguments against banning the OP\_IF were all total bullshit. arguments against limiting OP\_RETURN are also absolutely retarded. on the other hand there are plenty of claims that were debunked, such as the bip will break LN, or it will freeze funds, all bs.
Terrible advice. OP don’t listen to this disaster of a plan.
Tired of these dumb arse questions. Has BTC reach the bottom? Guess what? No one fucking knows! Crazy right? Is now a good time to buy? Yes.. it is! If OP even bothered to research one chart you’d have a decent clue as to the timing of the cycle right now. If BTC hits 40k later this year, it’s still a good time to buy, stop trying to time the bottom. Think about when BTC hit last ATH, you were wishing you bought at 16, 20, 30 even 40k. Either was still a good time to buy. So stfu and buy!
95% of all threads started on AITA are AI generated. The responses might not be but you would be hard pressed to see a real OP
“Elliott Wave to measure probabilities” while calling on-chain data noise is peak comedy. EW is the astrology of TA - three wave counters, three counts, all recounted the second price disagrees Also OP said he’s holding, not trading. Boring DCA has quietly beaten most self-styled probability traders over any multi-year window
Nobody knows anything, all we can do it guess and I think OP's guess was a good move. But only time will tell
This is a perfect example of why OP's idea is very helpful because those ETF links, I didn't know about them.
Then you have nothing to worry about when the OP-return filters are reinstated.
I think OP’s premise falls apart the second you actually think about how a "Web of Trust" works. "Verified real users; not bots." Like, okay... who is verifying them? The internet? A government ID check? Zuckerberg? The entire reason Bitcoin works is because it's completely permissionless and anonymous. It doesn't care who you are, what your name is, or if you're a literal algorithm. The moment you introduce a gatekeeper to police "who is a real human," congratulations, you’ve just engineered your way back to a traditional centralized bank. Then relying on "human trust relationships" to secure a global financial network is hilariously naive. Have you ever met other people? We are easy to bribe, extort, and/or track down meaning that if a government wants to censor a transaction on this network, they just need to send a couple of agents to the front door of the "highly trusted nodes." Good luck trying to reverse a thermodynamic math equation on the Bitcoin network.
OP asked for the best currency to save in... Flow is down 93% in the last year, and down 99.93% from its all time high... that means if you bought $1,000 of it in April 2021 you would now have about $0.65 left today. That doesn't seem like the best currency to save in. Additionally, the network processes single digit TPS and has only a few hundred active users per day. And as for the multi-node technology, running any of the node types requires a faster internet speed than is commonly available outside of data centres, meaning that there is no meaningful decentralization. So to summarize, the token is dead, the network is dead, and while the technology might be interesting, no normal users can even run it... did I miss anything?
Of course it can, OP. You can play Donkey Kong with it too.
That website is 100% scam. I reported more than 100 posts because they are advertising that scam in most sneaky ways (they are creating innocent looking posts, and editing them after some time for advertising it). I hope you didn't lost much OP
OP was claiming Bitcoin blockchain is "a free cloud storage", something the bip110 leaders keep repeating. It obviously isn't true and I've pointed that out. You agreed and followed with your point, saying it's ridiculously cheap. You also introduced a picture of a cat and Dropbox as an example: "You can’t store anything in the blockchain “for free”, you have to pay to put data on the blockchain, financial or otherwise. But the amount you have to pay for the right to store arbitrary data is so ridiculously cheap compared to an equivalent cloud storage provider, and it’s a one time fee compared to an ongoing subscription. If I want to store a picture of a cat on Dropbox, I have to pay them for that right and pay them continuously." So I said: "Dropbox is giving free accounts, no need to pay for storing "a picture of a cat" at all." You, claiming the free storage is only for certain people and moving the goalpost from a picture of a cat to a meaningful amount of data: "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" So I went to Dropbox website to find about the certain people and found out it's free to anyone with an internet connection. "They're giving 2GB of free storage to anyone with an e-mail." Also went with your meaningful data example: "What's meaningful? Over 2GB? How much it would cost to put over 2GB of data into Bitcoin blockchain? Would that be free? Of course not. Would it cost a "trivial amount"? Of course not. Not just that, it would take over 10 years of full bitcoin blocks to "upload" this meaningful data." Your reaction: "Are you intentionally pulling out distractions here?" You are introducing the distractions, mate. Going from a minimum amount of data to the max. In NONE of your examples, **storing anything on the Bitcoin blockchain isn't cheaper.** I thought that was the point of the discussion. Perhaps your point is elsewhere and I've missed it because I got distracted with bad examples **introduced by you**. >The fact that they allot some free allowance to entice customers into their service is both incidental to Dropbox specifically (everyone gives a different amount of free storage) and irrelevant because it’s not *unlimited* free storage. Explain how Bitcoin is "*unlimited* free storage"? Because you went from a single picture of a cat to meaningful amount of data to unlimited free storage. Or we don't compare the storage capacity and are comparing unlimited storage to a **VERY LIMITED AND NOT FREE STORAGE** that Bitcoin blockchain is. >This is what I think the 110 crowd is getting frustrated with, you aren’t engaging with the point. What exactly is your/their point, mate? Your examples are getting ridiculous and I'm getting lost. I thought the point was, they don't want Bitcoin to be " a free cloud storage ". It isn't. I thought your point was you can store a picture of a cat cheaper on Bitcoin than on Dropbox or similar storage. You can't. I thought your point was you can store a meaningful amount of data cheaper on Bitcoin than on Dropbox or similar storage. You can't. Now I'm thinking your point is you can store unlimited data cheaper on Bitcoin than on Dropbox or similar storage. You can't. >Cloud storage providers are not free Sorry, but they are. They certainly are a CHEAPER option than Bitcoin. Do you seriously think otherwise? >the free tier is a complete cop out of this fact. You do know that Bitcoin doesn't offer a free tier at all, right? That really is a fact. Not claiming something that isn't true at all.
Yep. OP is talking about 90 EU, so that should be ridiculously easy at a meetup or university CS club. OP, if they charge you a markup, that's fine: everyone does (the exchanges charge a fee). And over time it will go up in value anyway. Plus I think we're near this cycle's low, so buying now even at a premium would be a smart thing to do.
Haha, mega projection with the redditor NPC. Your OP is the archetype. So why don't you do it, then? Point to resources that aren't scams? But instead you want to posture with "you aren't smart enough," diagnosed by Dr. Galaxy Brain. Are you really that oblivious to how corny and condescending that is? You truly are fedora-san. We are all here to give and take information, that's how this works. As I originally said, that rotten ill intent kills the human layer of the internet and is the opposite of Bitcoin and FOSS ethos. Your approach is cancerous and embarrassing. Have you considered you may just not have any common sense and are an asshole to children asking to learn?
To answer your question OP, there are two trains of thought when it comes to the Bitcoin bottom. The first train of thought is based on a grand, optimistic narrative that strategy buying, spot ETFs, and increased global adoption will invalidate the typical four year cycle thesis and there will be a bottom that is unprecedentedly shallower than any other time in history. The second train of thought is the more traditional, cyclical view that Bitcoin bottoms either through time-based or price-based capitulation, and a realistic but optimistic estimation would have BTC bottoming around 40k. I guess as a bonus the 3rd camp would be the sub 70 IQ crowd calling for 0-20k because to them, Bitcoin dies every 4 years.
>If I want to store a picture of a cat on Dropbox, I have to pay them for that right and pay them continuously. Dropbox is giving free accounts, no need to pay for storing "a picture of a cat" at all. >I pay a trivial fee one time and it exists there for eternity. Perhaps this will be news to you but years ago, I had a larger Dropbox storage for a year or two, thanks to buying some (possibly Samsung) phone. It was something like 100GB. After that time, the free space dropped down to a smaller number. I'm constantly getting emails from Dropbox to buy some space otherwise I won't be able to upload anything extra. But the uploaded files stay there for a decade or more without paying anything extra. Similar to your one time fee example. >It’s not “free”, there is a cost, but the cost is trivial. The same or trivially more "trivial cost" will be paid to spam Bitcoin blockchain on the 110 network too. https://adbytes.media/blog/bitcoin-dev-martin-habovstiak-mocks-bip-110-with-66-kb-blockchain-image-stunt And that's the problem I have with bip110 supporters. Both attacks are cheap, bip110 isn't going to stop them, there still will be 4MB ready every 10 minutes. People who are happy to spend sats on the limited space, will use it as they wish. I for example will spam the blockchain with my transactions, some will send regarded pictures. My node will make sure, none of that goes free as OP falsely claims.
Bro, OP is standing right there!
That’s just such an absurd prospect on the face of it. We are helpless against someone abusing OP_RETURN to stuff 100kb of data completely unrelated to bitcoin-as-money. That’s just the state of affairs, and we are supposed to accept it? I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just noting how strong of a knee jerk reaction I have against it upon reading it. It feels ludicrous.
I’ll engage, because I want to lean more myself. You can’t store anything in the blockchain “for free”, you have to pay to put data on the blockchain, financial or otherwise. But the amount you have to pay for the right to store arbitrary data is so ridiculously cheap compared to an equivalent cloud storage provider, and it’s a one time fee compared to an ongoing subscription. If I want to store a picture of a cat on Dropbox, I have to pay them for that right and pay them continuously. If I want to store that same picture on the blockchain, I pay a trivial fee one time and it exists there for eternity. It’s not “free”, there is a cost, but the cost is trivial. This is what I understand people to mean when they say OP_RETURN is “free” cloud storage. If you want to rely on the technicality that it isn’t free, then fine, but it doesn’t satisfy the spirit of the complaint these folks are levying.
Discount doesn't mean "a free cloud storage", OP is claiming.
> afaik this is the first time this topic is being discussed on this sub. [Nah](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1tmh5i3/why_do_moderators_delete_posts_about_bitcoin/onn66mj/) and there were absolutely endless threads about the OP_RETURN stuff... such a waste of time. I can't even count how many comments I wrote that no one ever saw because the OP immediately deleted their own post when I replied only to post a similar one a few hours later. > also to my knowledge Mechanic is going several extra miles to be civil You're referring to one of the two guys that keeps calling his opponents pedos! You have to be joking. He's also much nastier under his alt accounts.
>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.
OP is predicting the future… which usually goes well.
OP, make sure you don’t trip and fall on your face when October rolls around.
Don't you think that the same argument you have used to demonstrate the supposed failures of knots filters would apply here? If a smart developer can quickly devise a method to bypass certain filter, the same can be said about the limitations on certain niche multisig setups. I don't think that the strategies in bip 110 are the best, but we are at this stage after a long string of bad decisions and negative to hear valid criticism by core leadership. Leaving taproot without reasonable limitations was a clear blunder. All the work to make blockchain use more efficient with segwit was undone by providing unlimited discounted space to embed data. The fact that knots filters were affecting block propagation is the best proof of it effectiveness. If core would have implemented them, any miner bypassing the rules could be under serious risk of getting their blocks reorged. That would have stopped the problem. I don't think the discussion on OP\_RETURN is a wise one. I agree that it is the best place to have arbitrary data, as it is paying the full price for block space. But it's a failed strategy if the 75% discounted space is still open.
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.
I've used Kraken and every other major exchange since launch. Kraken by far was always the most consumer friendly, and the quickest to offer real assistance. This matches community consensus. Chances are OP has something deeper going on and Kraken is doing what is expected of any legitimate financial institution. It may be something Kraken isn't allowed to speak on. Not even with OP.
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.
wtf!?! OP wasn't telling us a story about cryptocurrencies, he was telling us a story of a centralised exchange withholding assets. Once his crypto is off the exchange he is free to do with it as he pleases, but while binance had it it wasn't really his and he didn't really have control over it.
I think the concern isn't "I personally need 100KB of OP_RETURN data." It's about incentives. If storing arbitrary data on-chain becomes significantly easier, more people will do it, increasing block space demand and fees. The debate is less about today's use cases and more about what behavior the network should encourage over the long term.
> 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. I think you're probably a bit confused about taproot. The whole concept is that the script is usually not supposed to be seen. You can have complicated rules and conditions but then hopefully cooperatively settle it with a plain signature at the root. So you really have no idea how it's being used from looking at the chain. Beyond that: Say I picked vanity genned addresses that began with the same prefix as your address and then spammed the chain so that 90% of 1Champion payments were spam.. it would be okay to confiscate your coins? It doesn't work like that. The sensible use is it's own justification independent of any dumb use. This is particularly true when the dumb use is incidental. "FALSE OP_IF" is what inscriptions did, but they could just as equally do "PUSH DROP", no skin off their back. They've even already developed the 110 compatible code. > why does 2024-2026 take longer to sync than the rest of the history? Sync time is pretty accurately modeled by the number of checksig operations. The blocks that are full of inscriptions are MUCH faster to validate than typical blocks. (And no, I'm not advocating them-- just pointing out slowing down bitcoin is not one of their problems).
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.
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?
Great question. 110 is really not about op_return or rather there is a consensus limit on them but its only one of a dozen limits. Had 110 been a proposal for op_return only and had it had a reasonable limit big enough for PQ signatures and various zkp proposals and big enough that it wouldn't have immediately caused a bunch of fake-pubkey use ... (probably 510 bytes or so), it probably would have not been very controversial. But I think a non-controversial proposal wouldn't have really met the 'meta-'goal of the proponents: to 'fire' the open source development community around Bitcoin. To achieve that 110 had to be constructed to be as controversial as possible while still getting adopted anyways. I think they've totally missed that mark, but we'll see! The issue with timelocks is that you author and sign transaction today that won't be valid for confirmation until the future and then you can't change the transaction. So you're screwed if the consensus rules tighten in unexpected ways. As a result incredible care has been taken with every softfork since the time of Satoshi to not confiscate anyone's coins by accident. Taproot even introduces a special mechanism for future softforks to make them even more confiscation safe called OP_SUCCESS ... though 110 takes that out too. :( [OP_SUCCESS works by making all the unused/invalid OP_CODES make the coins instantly spendable. So they can get assigned different meanings in the future without being concerned that any one might have authored a transaction that used them because if they did they'd just be giving their coins away.] 110's OP_RETURN change itself could burn a timelock user because e.g. your timelock release happens to have a OP_RETURN in it that isn't allowed later. But I don't think that's the bigger concern there (and it isn't for me). The reason is that there isn't much reason to have a large op_return in a timelock release and so (hopefully!!) no one has done that, though it's impossible to know. The bigger issue 110 also considerably caps the size of multisigs and restricts how they can be constructed: particularly no IF/NOTIF in them, which means that even moderately complex multisigs constructed using the descriptor wallet compiler are all invalid under it. It limits the size of taproot trees to depth 7, eliminates the possibility of encoding more complicated multisigs as individual leaves to avoid op_if. It also blocks many other address types including the original pay-to-pubkey that Satoshi used. So if your release transaction(s) use any of these, they won't be valid under 110. And since they're timelocked you can't hurry up and get them onto the chain now ahead of it. Maybe they'll still be useful to you after 110 expires, but the 110 authors have been completely clear that they intend it to be permanent on the installment plan, the timeout is to avoid a status quo bias and force people to upgrade to get new restrictions later, similar to the timbbomb in knots (it won't start if its too old to make you upgrade). 110 is just a radical different design direction for Bitcoin: it's prescriptive. You can use bitcoin in particular allowed ways and everything else is forbidden. This still isn't enough to actually block NFT/spam traffic, but it just reflects a different philosophy of governance which is more authoritarian and less anarchistic/libertarian.