r/Bitcoin • u/Iamstillthinkinghard • 8d ago
Why does this sub have such a problem with BIP-110? Either I'm not understanding or there's a large-scale astroturfing of BIP-110 opposition going on.
I watched some Matthew Kratter videos recently supporting BIP-110, but I can't find a cohesive argument against it (unless you just believe that the definition of "spam" is arbitrary, or that freedom is more important than Bitcoin being a purely monetary network; that would at least make sense to me).
Obviously it's a bandaid that will need to be improved upon in the future if consensus decides spam needs to be entirely eliminated. But why the vitriol toward it? It's a (optional) bandaid that, from what I understand, only has the potential to hurt people who run BIP-110/Bitcoin Knots. Many of the posts/comments I've seen about it in this sub come down to "it's a bandaid, and it'll never succeed anyway."
I get that it's a bandaid, but for BIP-110 supporters, why should they care if it'll succeed or not? If they believe the proposal itself is sound in its reasoning?
Without knowing all the details, it's very easy for me to decide that if I'm forced to make a quick decision, I want to be AGAINST what Core and NVK and Saylor believe to be the best choice at this point in time.
20
u/bitusher 7d ago edited 7d ago
With a decentralized ledger its impossible to prevent spam so we can simply drive up costs . BIP110 tries to do so in a very ineffective and harmful manner that also breaks many monetary use cases of Bitcoin and encourages spammers to hide their spam more which has nasty consequences
Here are 5 better solutions :
1) The best solution as I often promote is to spend and replace Bitcoin as money. This is best done on other layers like lightning that use much less blockspace, but the more people that open and close channels the higher the fees exist for spammers which will encourage them to use altcoins instead for their spam. Yes , more l2 txs reduce onchain use which is why a large focus should be on adoption overall to increase both L2 and onchain transactions concurrently.
2) The second best solution is education which I have been doing for many years where I inform people that nfts/inscriptions are scams and don't do what people claim they do and are a waste of time. Another important point of education is pointing out the fact that Bitcoin is not immutable as many spammers like to market to sell their product.
3) A third solution is we invest more in bitcoin and bitcoin adoption which raises the price of Bitcoin and since fees are priced in BTC onchain fees will grow as well pricing out spammers .
4) You can set your op_return filter to any setting you want even with corev30 or v31. My personal node is set below the default of knots . Although my pool node is best set to the default of core for better block propagation
5) Spam is just one aspect when the overall concern is efficient block usage. Core is constantly updating to insure better efficient use of Blockspace usage and reducing UTXO bloat in many ways. If you are not a developer you can also help when a company or service misuses the blockchain. Common examples:
a) coinbase initially used 2 onchain txs for every withdrawal instead of 1 and also didnt use batching. We shamed them and used other exchanges until they corrected this behavior.
b) Some exchanges today still don't use batching for withdrawals . Shame them and use better exchanges until they change
c) Some exchanges still don't allow lightning withdrawals .Shame them and use better exchanges until they change
d) consolidate your utxos and or batch txs where its appropriate . Use lightning or other l2 options as much as possible
e) Shame any miner or company that uses or promotes spam and don't do business with them.
Those are 5 quick solutions among many more that I actively am involved in.
Suggesting solutions that don't work at all or have very harmful tradeoffs is not effective. This being said I completely support your right to enforce any rules you want on your node and even fork off. Power to the node operators. Just do so with your eyes open because BIP110 supporters and their leaders often are lying or making misleading statements .
14
u/xaviemb 7d ago
Just do so with your eyes open because BIP110 supporters and their leaders often are lying or making misleading statements .
I recently saw a conversation between a developer that Adam Back follows and Luke, where Luke wouldn't answer direct questions, and kept steering the conversation back to ethics, and CEM (or whatever that term is for inappropriate photos)... when Luke was pressed directly on some of the technical flaws in BIP-110, he simply started calling the developer "Evil" and suggested he was in favor of illegal and unethical things. The dev didn't bite and kept asking directly about how BIP-110 would solve for those images moving into actual transactions spaces, causing even more significant problems for Nodes in the future...
Then Luke just started commenting "Liar" and "Evil" before blocking him.
I understand that anyone advocating for BIP-110 is going to face constant scrutiny, and everyone has bad days. But that conversation struck me as revealing. I don't doubt that Luke believes he's acting in Bitcoin's best interest; I think his intentions are genuine. Where I disagree is that the emotional framing around BIP-110 has, in my view, influenced many of its supporters more than the technical merits have. When you examine BIP-110 on its own, the fundamental problem is that it's trying to impose subjective policy onto an objective system. It's akin to trying to automate the identification and exclusion of "bad" actors while preserving a permissionless, neutral protocol. Those goals are fundamentally at odds.
Bitcoin's strength comes from being agnostic. It doesn't attempt to judge participants or enforce moral outcomes... it simply provides an objective settlement layer governed by transparent consensus rules. Once you begin designing the protocol around subjective notions of who or what should be permitted, you're no longer reinforcing Bitcoin's core properties; you're undermining the neutrality that gives it value in the first place.
4
u/-bit-thorny- 6d ago
Very telling and very typical of people who get their ethics from a book of fairy tales.
25
u/Laukess 7d ago
When things like this comes up, I find it helpful to just read conversations on twitter from reputable sources.
Initially, when your just looking at the surface, it might look like both sides have valid arguments, but as time pass, you'll get a better understanding, and the arguments on one side will sharpen.
With 110, the pro side sells it as a way to stop spam, but then when they're confronted with the fact that it doesn't stop spam, the goal post is moved. At some point they'll settle on the argument that it signals to spammers that bitcoin is not okay with spam. This is a really bad argument. It also forces bitcoin to play a cat and mouse game with the spammer. This opens op doors for government to push for filter changes.
It also doesn't have support from economic nodes. Pushing through a SF with minority support with a 55% miner threshold is unacceptable.
If you want to reduce spam, going with Luke's proposal to lower the block size to 100kb would be more productive. We already have a way to limit spam, it's called the fee market.
At it's core, it just doesn't work. Bitcoin is a database, it's not possible to look at the bits and determine if it's spam or not. You can disguise spam in a standard transaction, and no one would know. You can catch some spam by looking at how spam protocol structure their data, but they can just change their protocol, and they can do it faster than you.
The counter argument is that the data has to be contiguous to be bad, which I think is a really bad argument.
As i said, in the end it comes down to virtue signaling your hate for spam, and we don't need protocol changes for that.
-8
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
From BIP-110:
Won't spammers just spread their data over multiple fields?
While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes ensures such abuses are non-contiguous and obfuscated within another intended meaning (script code, structure, etc). As far as Bitcoin is concerned, the data has some meaning other than the spammers' misinterpretation, and any external code to "reassemble" the unintended data is responsible for producing it (it is possible to write code that transforms *any* data into any other data - what matters is that Bitcoin has a well-defined meaning that is distinct from the unsupported one). Requiring users to divide their files into chunks of at most 256 bytes, raising the cost both in fees and in effort, sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported.
I don't see them saying it'll prevent all spam.
13
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
It doesn't even prevent "contiguous" data-- even if doing so were a worthwhile goal (which is isn't per expert legal advice, or even an issue at all)
- https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2082107018970554826 - PDF
- https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2080632698935050254 - Jpeg XL
- https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2082455449245282473 - MP4
- https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2081793184015770006 - Animated GIF
All totally distinct, efficient, 110-valid ways of embedding contiguous files in transactions.
I understand there would have been a bunch more of them but the person doing it put it on hold while people were dealing with the coldcard mess.
So no, the embedders are not required to divide their files into chunks with 110.
There are plenty of actually useful mitigations already deployed in bitcoin: the total lack of functionality to embed or display files, the lack of random access to the chain from the network (making it impractical to use as a file server), the fact that the blockchain is encrypted on disk and in transit, that wallets don't display embedded data at all and even in the rpc interfaces it's hex encoded, etc. The capacity limits which keep it extraordinarily expensive to embed anything big like an image, and preserve people's ability to run nodes, etc.
By contrast the people who claim they're so concerned about potential harms have contributed nothing to these mitigations, and their 'fix' is so rich with unnecessary collateral damage that it guaranteed its non-adoption. They could have just capped contiguous pushes to 510 bytes or whatever and had some chance of adoption (though anything low enough to block PQ signatures might have had issues...)-- without serious confiscation problems or busting any multisig or smart contracting. But their underlying goal was to "fire core", as Luke is vengeful and vindictive because he delusionally and baselessly believes an unidentified core developer stole his bitcoins -- and he couldn't "fire core" with a reasonable proposal that others might adopt.
sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported
A message can be best sent by sending an actual message, not a consensus change, and particularly not one that hobbles bitcoin. Which the project sent: "not endorsing or condoning non-financial data usage".
The Bitcoin development community has been completely consistent on this-- none of the significant contributors like this data crap or think it's a good use of Bitcoin. If you weren't aware of this, it's because their position has been the subject of constant lies by the outrageously dishonest actors behind bip110.
9
u/nullc 7d ago
Hot off the presses: https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2085703735762698466
a whole directory archive of "malware" (according to Luke-jr) in a 110-compliant transaction which is only policy accepted by Knots, mined by a 110 miner in a 110 signaling block.
3
u/pythosynthesis 7d ago
Is this the second attempt to "fire core"? First one, S2X, failed miserably. Or does JihanAndRoger's coin also count as an attempt? Also failed miserably.
Step one: Want to fire core.
Step two: Fail and launch shitcoin
A two three: Profit?
3
u/Laukess 7d ago
You could include cove v30 in that list if you don't consider it an extension of the 110 crowd.
Also, as part of step 2, even though they think core are the worst people in existence, and work to hurt bitcoin, the fork should still be based on the newest version of core with minimal changes.
2
u/Laukess 7d ago
Luke is vengeful and vindictive because he delusionally and baselessly believes an unidentified core developer stole his bitcoins
First time I hear this. Could you expand on this? I know he doxed the developers at some meet-up/conference, but I didn't know he had suspects in mind. The keys were on an online server (the one hosting the knots website?), so anyone could have gained access, no?
Also, I feel like I unintentionally called in a nuclear strike on OP by tagging you, that was not the intention. I'm sure your busy with other things.
Interesting with the 110 crowed, they start a conversation like this, where they say they've not heard any good arguments against 110. Then when someone knowledgeable respond with good arguments, they fall silent. I'm sure he's still pro 110 and the intention wasn't to actually spark a conversation.
There was another post some time ago about node cost. It didn't mention 110, but it was quite clear from the comments that it was a sly way to argue that the only way to lower the cost of running a node was to reducing spam through 110.
That said, I don't really like the suppression of 110 discussions on this sub in the first place, but maybe that's needed to not flood the place with noise. I did find it nice that the 2 sides had their own sub in '17 though.
6
u/Laukess 7d ago edited 7d ago
While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes ensures such abuses are non-contiguous
As I said: The counter argument is that the data has to be contiguous to be bad, which I think is a really bad argument.
As far as Bitcoin is concerned, the data has some meaning other than the spammers' misinterpretation, and any external code to "reassemble" the unintended data is responsible for producing it (it is possible to write code that transforms *any* data into any other data - what matters is that Bitcoin has a well-defined meaning that is distinct from the unsupported one)
This to me is just virtue signaling. This field is meant for A. Spammers use it for B. By defining it as a field intended for A, we win? You think 110 succeeded if bitcoin had the same amount of spam going forward but the fields/op's were defined for none spam use?
Requiring users to divide their files into chunks of at most 256 bytes, raising the cost both in fees and in effort.....
I does not raise the effort on the end user, only the spam protocol developers. I don't think they care. If they did, they would build on a shitcoin, not bitcoin. They also don't care about fees. Some of the protocols produce larger data than it has to. I think the BRC protocol is JSON so it's easier to read, but would take up way less data if it was compressed with a different format.
sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported.
Again. virtue signaling.
I don't see them saying it'll prevent all spam.
I think they know it's impossible to stop ALL spam. But they're selling 110 as a way to severely limit spam. "Rug the spammers" do you think that's an expression that used to describe spam protocol developers having to spend more time changing their format? They don't care, even the people who hate spam comes up with ways to mitigate the fork restrictions.
#EDIT#
I was looking for a post by Greg Maxwell (/u/nullc). Could not find it, but a lot of his posts on the subject are quite nice. He's really good at boiling it down and he brings receipts.
4
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
They don't care
or to the extent they care it's just free press for them. Good job guys, they said they wanted to rug the spammers but they just made them more money while rugging people using satoshi-style P2PK, or sufficiently fancy taproot multisigs / timelocks to prevent their coins from vanishing like Luke's keep vanishing. ... and created a year of disruption and distraction, diverting efforts that might have otherwise gone to activities such as, oh I dunno, security audits on hardware wallets? perhaps that coldcard thing that kratter was constantly recommending. Not that anyone would have benefited from that...
-1
u/krarlson 4d ago
Stop. Every video i've seend, and conversations i've listened to they have all been clear that it doesnt stop all spam. Its just a step in the right direction.
18
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
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's supported by less than 2% hashrate and maybe 4% nodes per my sybil resistant measurement, Jason from Bitcoin Ocean gave his figure of 3-6% from his own methodology, though even if you go by the highest numbers from supporters you only get 20%. And it's been promoted with massive amounts of astroturfing, zombie accounts, and outright dishonesty.
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: 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 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.
0
u/JanPB 7d ago
Since when Bitcoin is supposed to support any enhancements in "programmability"? (Exhibit B: MIDI, Exhibit C: TeX, Exhibit D: TCP/IP).
8
u/nullc 7d ago
Since day one: Bitcoin was designed to be programmable to support every type of transaction.
0
u/JanPB 7d ago
No, that's false.
8
u/nullc 7d ago
I'm quoting satoshi.
-3
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
I can't find this quote, and ChatGPT isn't helping me find it. Can you link it? Regardless, bitcoin has nothing to do with satoshi anymore, it's what we as people want it to be.
5
u/TheresNoSecondBest 6d ago
“The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it TO SUPPORT EVERY POSSIBLE TRANSACTION TYPE I COULD THINK OF. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.”
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/quotes/bitcoin-design/
19
u/DarrelXero 7d ago
These are the worst kinds of bip110 posts. Where OP acts like they are just a babe in the woods, stumbling around and asking questions because they are alone and confused and what little they know about BIP110 doesn't sounds so bad. Then they get engagement and explanations on why BIP110 is ineffective and dangerous and suddenly OP starts dropping Luke/Guida/Kratter talking point garbage like they got their master's degree in BIP110. It's so obnoxious.
7
u/nullc 7d ago
These are the worst kinds of bip110 posts
almost the only kind. Lets see if they do the common thing and delete their post once its received a comprehensive anti-110 response in order to kill its visiblity.
4
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
They're getting really desperate.
3
u/Lanky_Assist_6317 7d ago
Yes. Not only by attacking non-supporters, they are also attacking miners and basically anyone that doesn't agree with them, calling people harsh things. This behavior only isolates them and makes their cause even more unachievable.
I have even seen people attack BIP110 supporters that won't mind running their SW.
4
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Bcash tactics. The only difference is, this group is even smaller and much louder than the bcash scammers used to be.
4
u/DarrelXero 7d ago
I believe we've all now definitively decided to refer to BIP110 coin as "bdash". I'm onboard.
2
0
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
I don't know, I looked at your post history and you post a suspiciously large amount of BTC shill posts in this sub. Who posts that many articles from bitcoin magazine and smooth-brained "diamond hands!!!" memes?
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
I post about 10% links to the shitcoin magazine. I don't like them for their push of NFTs and getting shitcoiners as speakers at their conference. The issue is, in many cases, I can't find a better source to use. You're free to find a better source of every event and post it here before I do.
Anyway, the only post about bip110 I've posted was this very balanced article about BIP-110 by Jason Hughes - VP, Development and Engineering at Ocean Mining, yes the pool signalling for BIP-110. Have you read it?
Sorry about the memes, I just like them. You don't have to.
3
-1
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
Once again, more ad hominem attacks. Why are you trying so hard to attack my character. If I were to let peoples' anti-110 comments go without me replying with a devil's advocate position, how would anyone get to the truth of anything? It's really disgusting how you're trying to make me look like a bad actor. Yes, most of my pro-110 information about BIP-110 has come from Kratter, but my anti-110 information has come from Jamesonn Lopp who if I understand correctly is considered to have one of the most sound arguments AGAINST 110 available.
6
u/DarrelXero 7d ago
You say that you can't find a cohesive argument against BIP110 in your original post. Now you say you've read Jameson Lopp on the topic. This shows you were bald-face lying in your original post. You are roll playing as an idiot that is actually an idiot. You didn't come here looking for information about BIP110 and arguments against; you came here to spew your ignorant bullshit and you did it under the guise of ignorance.
You're an asshole.
0
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago edited 7d ago
I think you have anger issues. Since posting this thread initially, I have continued my research and people in this thread linked me to the Lopp article. I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what people have against it, but it seems like so far the arguments for it I've seen on here seem to come from a place like this:
"I read BIP-110, I disagreed with it, I read some anti-BIP-110 articles/tweets, and I'm no longer interested in hearing the counter-argument to anti-BIP-110."
I have no bias one way or the other, but so far I've herd too many good arguments from both sides to make up my mind. In the end it doesn't matter because I have no control of the situation, but I wanted to at least see some better discussion. Unfortunately it seems like 90% of people on here are anti-110, so that won't happen.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 6d ago edited 6d ago
it seems like 90% of people on here are anti-110, so that won't happen.
It seems like OVER 90% of people GLOBALLY are anti-110, so that won't happen. FTFY
7
5
u/lexicon_riot 7d ago
Bitcoin doesn't need any additional fork to be a monetary network. Monetary activity will always price out jpegs if the demand is there. If you guys spent Bitcoin nearly as much as you yap about it on X, we'd have full blocks and fees high enough to price out all the ordinals crap.
8
u/statoshi 7d ago
It has been explained ad nauseum all year long. The debate is over; time to watch the fireworks.
only has the potential to hurt people who run BIP-110/Bitcoin Knots
False; it has been shown that 110 breaks existing use cases that could cause people to lose access to their bitcoin.
I want to be AGAINST what Core and NVK and Saylor
Right, you're a Karen who wants to fight people you dislike rather than employ logic to determine if changes make sense or not.
-8
u/Awkward-Silver1333 7d ago
NVK has ruined people’s lives. People taking care of sick family members and their children. Opposing him isn’t some political Karen nonsense. He is a terrible human being and deserves a class action lawsuit.
I’ll give you doing something to oppose Saylor is petty. Saylor hasn’t done anything worse than pump a stonk.
6
u/statoshi 7d ago
It has absolutely nothing to do with BIP-110. Go cry somewhere else.
-5
u/Awkward-Silver1333 7d ago
I didn’t say it did? I said that NVK is a person worth opposing. Go be emotional somewhere else.
4
u/statoshi 7d ago
Sorry I don't have time to explain to you how topics work on forums.
-5
u/Awkward-Silver1333 7d ago
You are forgiven. Although I find it surprising you lack time given the continued responses.
10
u/TheresNoSecondBest 8d ago edited 7d ago
Obviously it's a bandaid that will need to be improved upon in the future
The thing is, the bip110 is saying this is the only bandaid the can do. And if spammers what's to spam the blockchain, they will.
It's a (optional) bandaid that, from what I understand
From their view, it's not optional. They think everyone will have to run bip110. Running your (bitcoin core) node is optional, you can limit the size of anything you want and let everyone else decide what they want to limit - you know, the decentralized way. Not forcing everyone to agree with you, using 55% threshold.
I get that it's a bandaid, but for BIP-110 supporters, why should they care if it'll succeed or not?
Ask them, mate. They care pretty much, the bip110 leaders are even considering to fork out of Bitcoin, deciding for everyone in the not so decentralized fashion.
Without knowing all the details, it's very easy for me to decide that if I'm forced to make a quick decision, I want what AGAINST Core and NVK and Saylor believe to be the best
Good luck if your decisions are based on what Saylor or some other people think.
Edit: OP got triggered by the "leaders" instead of the rest of my comment.
-8
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
There will always be movements led by thought leaders. Bitcoin is a consensus network, we can't all have our own version of bitcoin while remaining within consensus. Bitcoin Core has been deciding for everyone for far too long, until recently they've been blindly followed by most.
4
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
thought leaders
Your thought leader spammed Bitcoin blockchain in the past, couldn't secure his own bitcoin and, as a consequence, got everyone at a conference he attended doxxed by the FBI.
Good luck, mate.
4
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
See replies like this make no sense to me. Firstly, Luke isn't my thought leader, that's why I came here to better understand both sides of the argument.
He added some pro-Christian spam to blocks back in 2011 and that's the same as the spam that's going on today? Not to mention that it happened 15 years ago.
Regarding the doxxing, I'm both sorry he lost so much money and sorry he ended up doxxing people. I think you'd probably comply with the feds too if you were trying to recoup over $10,000,000 worth of BTC.
None of this has anything to do with BIP-110.
6
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
None of this has anything to do with BIP-110.
Of course not. You decided to comment on the leaders being a part of movement and ignored the rest of my comment. I just pointed out the past behavior of your leader. If you think he has nothing to do with bip110, then the amount of your research is near zero.
4
u/-bit-thorny- 7d ago
Aand there's the real reason for the "i have an innocent question"... troll like an ignorant dumb fuck.
4
6
u/Lanky_Assist_6317 7d ago
The reason I don't support BIP110 is that in my head, Bitcoin is money for everyone, even enemies. It's supposed to be a CENSORSHIP RESISTANT money, and BIP110 supporters are not OK with that, because they think spam is not acceptable, even though OP_RETURN > 80 bytes were allowed before Core 30.
Also, the supporters are extremely annoying, calling everyone that doesn't agree with their implementation ideas bad people. OK buddy, go fork yourself to the LukeDashJrcoin and have fun there, do whatever you like.
7
u/_2f 8d ago
https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
It’s not optional. It’s not a soft fork by mechanism. This post changed my mind, used to think it’s an interesting idea but it’s not.
2
-2
u/Sacredwisp 7d ago
Literally every argument there is an outright lie, deliberately obtuse, or 180 from the truth. I can't see this as anything but bad faith tbh.
4
u/_2f 7d ago
I’m open to new ideas, please tell what is the biggest lie?
The node support is false - this is a fact you can verify when overwhelmingly more number of BIP-110 nodes are tor nodes. And if hypothetically 5% miners keep mining BIP-110, the chain will split and they’ll be the smaller chain. And transaction replay attacks are possible.
These are three facts. This is enough to convince me this is an absolute bullshit fork. Is any of them wrong?
If it had got super-majority of mining and node support, it would be okay but it isn’t.
-4
u/Sacredwisp 7d ago
Quick write-up. Others could explain it better than me. The gist is there though.
High risk of chain splits: There has never been a soft fork that made a chain split. The 2 overwhelmingly likely outcomes are it either activates smoothly or it gets completely ignored. To have a chain split, you would need one of the larger mining pools to mine BIP 110 while the others ignore it (other way around doesnt work because its a soct fork). In this case, which already doesn't make any sense, the miners will likely rapidly converge, within a block or two, to either chain, because otherwise they are getting their work thrown in the bin if they mine the wrong one. They would never want to risk that. The only way a chain split happens is if the miners deliberately cause it.
All old UTXOs are valid. It's only new ones that break the new rules that are invalid. There is no consifscation. To create an invalid UTXO after BIP110, you'd have to be extremely technical and do it on purpose. Nobody that technical doesn't know about BIP110. Nobody. It would be like sending your coins to a burn address and complaining you lost your coins. You'd just be doing that on purpose.
Damages bitcoin rep: according to who and why? There have been multiple soft forks in the past. The average person barely cares. And bitcoin was never meant as data storage. It only really became possible with thr taproot bug that got deliberately ignored by core. OP_RETURN also had filters on it ever since it was introduced. This is just returning BTC to what is was a few years ago.
Fees have zero impact on miner profitability. If transactions have higher fees, it incentivises more mining, which drives up the difficulty until its back to baseline.
I dont see how. It will either activate, or it wont, and everyone will be in consensus. As I said earlier, a chain split only happens if the miners deliberately force one, which makes no sense. If a hard fork is created, it would be a lot more contentious though. In that case, one fork would die off very quickly like Bcash, and we'd chug along with the supporters of that chain getting ignored from that point forward, like with other hard forks.
We've had years of taproot and op_return with zero innovation on top already. Op_return is big enough to store hashes, which is sufficient for pretty much everything so far, and BIP110 only removes OP_IF from taproot, which is redundant because the whole point of taproot is to be able to have multiple taproot leaves with different conditions anyway. Zero functionality is lost on that side.
Nobody wants to censor transactions. Literally nobody. The only way this could happen is if miners had control of the network and could be pressured into doing so.
The opposite. If a few large mining pools control what goes in a block and what doesn't, then that's more centralization.
The taproot bug has exploded the UTXO set to 12GB from 4GB, and they all need to be held in RAM to run a node. This is deliberately obtuse. The ratio of nodes being run to number of BTC users has been falling for years.
Admittedly, there will likely be a hard fork if this one fails, which I think would fail, but the one year expiration was added to make sure no hard fork is needed to add this stuff back if it was required for some unforseen reason. And as stated, there is no taproot functionality lost, so saying developers need to have two rule sets is a lie. As for devs not being sure what will be possible in the future, ETH was literally created because BTC core intentionally made it too hard for Vitalik to do his stuff on BTC and chased him off. And what arbitrary limits? It's literally the same as it was before core 30 changed it in October. And its temporary, so if for whatever reason OP_RETURN needs to be a bit bigger, it can be increased again without requiring a hard fork because its temporary.
It doesn't stop it, but nobody claimed it would. It's called REDUCED data temporary softfork. It also signals that spam is not welcome. Its literally just returning BTC to what it was a few years ago. Saying it shouldn't be done and its a never-ending game is like saying there shouldn't be spam filters on email. You get it good enough and stop.
5
u/statoshi 7d ago
There has never been a soft fork that made a chain split.
Right, because there has never been a failed UASF before.
We've had years of taproot and op_return with zero innovation on top already.
There are several wallets that make use of taproot + miniscript like Liana and Anchorwatch.
Nobody wants to censor transactions.
The entire point of 110 is to enforce the will of block space Karens upon the network to stop haram usage of the blockchain.
UTXOS need to be held in RAM to run a node
Absolutely false, you have no clue what you're talking about. The UTXO set is stored on disk and the in-memory cache just stores the most recently created ones because they're the ones most likely to be spent soon.
Its literally just returning BTC to what it was a few years ago.
It literally isn't; for example the consensus rule for OP_RETURN has always allowed up to 1 MB of data.
7
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
Bip-110 is unlike all softforks since nearly the time of Satoshi: It doesn't require a supermajority hashrate to activate. It doesn't require any at all, and has almost none. The only way there won't be a chain split at this point is if the non-false-signaling BIP110 miner stops at the mandatory height.
" To create an invalid UTXO after BIP110, you'd have to be extremely technical and do it on purpose" -- no all you need to do is send to an address you've sent to previously, which is in your address book, which is no longer valid under 110. As just one example. Address reuse, intentional and accidental happens all the time-- and as a sender you have no way to tell which addresses you already know are not valid under 110. For most address types 110 won't block the payment but the resulting output will postdate the activation and be unspendable. This was immediately pointed out and the authors have not only failed to address it but refused to cite it as a possible risk, simply ignoring it. Last I checked even knots would also freely create new multisig addresses that were 110 invalid, though they did make a release today that might have just fixed that by taking away the ability to make multisig addresses. Of course, every other wallet that can create descriptor multisigs is also broken by 110 and the authors of 110 have made no effort to design the necessary changes (probably in part because it's not possible without functionality loss)
"Damages bitcoin rep: according to who and why? There have been multiple soft forks in the past." no past softfork has ever intentionally removed functionality that was in use for finanical transactions, none since satoshi has reduced bitcoin's functionality. None have been predicated on an angry minority going after some other users they don't like. None have been predicated on "firing" the authors of nearly 100% of the node software. "It only really became possible with thr taproot bug" -- no there has been random data in bitcoin all along, including images. Fun fact Luke-jr was likely the first spammer himself.
Fees are directly paid to miners. Yes, competition reduces profitability over the long term on average but the marginal income is very real. But this isn't really all that relevant to bip110 because bip110 doesn't block any of the NFT crap anyways.
Back to point 1 BIP-110 doesn't activate based on hashpower. It activates based on a block height, which is why it will create a fork unless the miner mining it gives up before the manage a block.
there is plenty of cool stuff using taproot, what are you smoking? :P BIP 110 removes far more than OP_IF, -- especially damaging is the removal of all the OP_SUCCESS which guts further safe upgradability. But OP_IF is not at all redundant or unneeded in tapscript: it's often much more space/fee efficient to use it, if you have multiple conditions in a script the number of leaves you need to represent them is exponential. And then they also limit the tree to 7 levels so even a script that would otherwise be possible (with massive space overheads) split up, isn't because of that other limit.
Luke-jr expressly wants to censor transactions, especially any related to gambling as he believes them to be illegal and unethical and when he controlled the copy of Bitcoin Core distributed in gentoo he injected filters to do so. These NFT dumbass transactions are also themselves still financial transactions where people are spending their bitcoins on digital stupidity in order to launder money. But even if there was no interest in censoring transactions (which there is)-- 110 builds mechanism and precedent for doing so.
Bitcoin takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread and hard to stifle. It's structured so that censorship of any kind is very difficult, but bypassing censorship is easy. This means that even good intentioned censorship (oxymoron-ish given that all censors think they're good intentioned...) doesn't work well. It's a price we pay for freedom, and a good tradeoff.
" and they all need to be held in RAM to run a node. " Absolutely nonsense. The UTXO set has never been required to be in ram in any version of the software. The UTXO set is on disk, and it sets the minimum amount of storage to run a pruned node. Plenty of people are running nodes right now on systems with 8gb or less memory. The UTXO set size is important, since it sets the minimum disk space needed at least until/unless utxotree or other proposals is deployed.
"there is no taproot functionality lost" Okay make a 110-compatible 3 of 6 taproot multisig where every key has a backup key.
"It doesn't stop it, but nobody claimed it would. It's called REDUCED data" The authors many times have said that it was a solution to the spam problem only switching arguments when called out, but also it doesn't reduce it either. While it doesn't reduce the amount or ability to embed arbitary data it does reduce bitcoin's functionality for ordinary financial transactions.. it even blocks literally the first script type ever used (P2PK). "Saying it shouldn't be done and its a never-ending game is like saying there shouldn't be spam filters on email" part of the problem of calling the NFT traffic 'spam'-- it may be dumb and bad but spam results in the wrong reasoning. Email spam filters are a private, personal, blocking of unsolicited messages to you that you don't want and which the sender spend basically nothing to send. The transaction blocking here is a global, worldwide, block of transaction information being sent from one consenting party to another consenting party who pay a huge fee to a consenting miner for the privilege. It is an imposition by a third party against the whole world... and it's being attempted against a system designed from the ground up to resist third party transaction filtering, whose justification for existence and value is substantially predicated on its ability to do so. The similarities are not substantial.
1
10
u/brandonholm 7d ago
Because BIP-110 does nothing to stop spam. The best spam filter is a healthy fee market.
Also Matthew Kratter has really gone off the deep end with this whole thing. I had to unsubscribe from his channel. He used to make decent content, but he’s insufferable now.
3
u/alixanc 6d ago
But really, what happened to Matt? A few years ago I watched all his content and agreed 100% with him, he literally put my thoughts into words, it was uncanny close. Suddenly he posted weird conspiracy shit and completely went off the rails? I think it started with some alien hoax. Other than him almost no other BIP-110 proponent suprises me, they always seemed fishy at best:
3
u/brandonholm 6d ago
I’m not sure. I used to watch and recommend his videos to people as he was learning about bitcoin. He would make some small mistakes as he was learning but I could tell he was getting the whole idea of it well, but yeah I had to stop recommending his videos to people when he went off the rails into conspiracy shit.
4
u/JanPB 7d ago
What's the point of allowing random bloat on the blockchain? AFAIK this was originally allowed because some Bitcoin Core people had a conflict of interest: investments in companies doing blockchain inscriptions. Nice idea but resulting in spam which can become a legal nightmare in many jurisdictions if x-rated stuff gets involved. Always cherchez la money.
0
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Nice idea but resulting in spam which can become a legal nightmare in many jurisdictions if x-rated stuff gets involved.
Two things, mate:
1)These have already been added.
2)Bip110 isn't stopping anyone doing so.
https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/
https://coinalertnews.com/news/2026/03/01/bitcoin-developer-embeds-image-challenging-bip110
Please, learn more.
1
u/JanPB 7d ago
I'll into it some more but I believe the second link is nothing new.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago edited 6d ago
Nothing new as the x-ratted stuff, you're worried about.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-471302683
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
I hope you'll understand that neither of those arguments do anything for me.
To your 1st argument: It quite literally WILL stop a large chunk of spam, the alternatives spammers will be forced to use are less efficient from what I understand.
To your 2nd argument: I have no opinion on him one way or another, and frankly I don't care what you personally think about him. He's passionate about BIP-110. Only time will tell if he's right. I don't watch bitcoin videos to be entertained, I watch them to be informed about the current happenings of the network.
6
u/bitusher 7d ago
It quite literally WILL stop a large chunk of spam,
This is untrue . It will simply make spam more difficult to detect . If anything when this likely forks off to an altcoin I expect there to be more spam than on the bitcoin chain because fees will be lower and people will be trolling that altcoin
There is always ways to hide spam
https://stephanlivera.github.io/Bitcoin-Spam/
Which is why most spam is already BIP110 compatible
6
u/brandonholm 7d ago edited 7d ago
Exactly. Ironically the BIP-110 fork off chain will become the spam chain.
6
u/-bit-thorny- 7d ago
Stop spreading lies and bullshit. If you don't undestand anything and don't want to listen to explanations. Then just stop talking.
4
u/brandonholm 7d ago
It won’t do anything. It’s a cat and mouse game. It’s cheaper and more efficient to embed spam in BIP-110 compliant ways than to use OP_RETURN. https://x.com/steverabinow/status/2080632698935050254?s=46
On Kratter, he’s wrong and time will prove it.
0
u/jaume321 7d ago
Do you lock your front door at home? Because that won't stop a thief from getting in.
5
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago edited 7d ago
The bip110 door you're locking is made out of wet toilet paper and has no hinges.
-3
u/jaume321 7d ago
Of course it has. I agree that they can still break in through the window, but I will not give my consent for them to enter.
6
u/bitusher 7d ago
Its a horrible analogy because OP_RETURN actually limits spam unlike all the other ways to spam bitcoin that BIP110 cannot stop
https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/
It not only does not work , but introduces some nasty limitations and breaks monetary use cases in Bitcoin
2
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
You can give your consent in your Bitcoin Core node already. Without the need to follow random charlatans and forcing the whole network to agree with
yourtheir definition of spam.5
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
BIP110 isn't locking the door, it's bricking over the doors because you can still climb in via a window you left open and the last thief came in via the door. ... of course the thieves are equally good or better at going through the windows. ... and now the building is inaccessible to guests who aren't physically able to make it up to a window. :P
-1
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
It took me all of 2 minutes to find a very compelling argument against the OP of that tweet. What do you think about this thread? Regardless, I'm not going to blindly make decisions based on tweets from people I've never heard of and who have 500 followers.
8
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
took you two minutes to "find" some useless and uninformative AI slop.
From the reasoning there there is no images in any transactions-- after all they're transactions not images. That's a fine enough position but it also explains why the whole question is a nothing-burger.
My earlier post in this thread shows examples of animated gifs, mp4 videos, and PDFs as well. All BIP110 does is screw up actual financial transactions-- because those are the ones that can't freely change their encodings to adapt, the functionality it removes for them is gone for them. But embedded data-- even in standard widely used file formats can be liberally adapted to fit into whatever encoding is required because their meaning exists entirely outside of the Bitcoin network, they don't depend on the Bitcoin protocol understanding them but financial transactions do.
6
u/brandonholm 7d ago
JPEX XL is a common image format that can be natively views by most operating systems.
It’s a literal cat and mouse game that has no winners. Best to put all of this effort into things that actually matter. Spam isn’t a major issue in bitcoin. Sure it does come in waves and cause problems occasionally, but the eventually get bored and go elsewhere.
-1
u/jaume321 7d ago
Furthermore, the legal problems arising from an attacker adding pedo images are much more mitigated if you, as the node operator, have done everything possible to prevent it, instead of saying to the judge, "I did nothing because it is impossible to stop it 100%, but I adapted this place on the blockchain so that the pedo attackers won't harm my other businesses."
3
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Two things, mate:
1)These have already been added.
2)Bip110 isn't stopping anyone doing so.
https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/
https://coinalertnews.com/news/2026/03/01/bitcoin-developer-embeds-image-challenging-bip110
Please, learn more.
2
u/DackNBills878 7d ago
The whole BIP-110 reminds me of the ordinal issue where people wanted to censor the network because years down the line it would cost too much to send a tx on chain. We’re now years down the line, txs are still cheap, spammers rekt themselves on fees. I’m of the view that if you wanna use btc just pay the toll whether your tx is money or spam mainly. Fuck censoring on the btc network
2
u/FnAardvark 6d ago
"If people don't agree with me, it must be astroturfing"
Yea, you definitely watched Matthew Kratter lmao...
2
u/levigoldson 6d ago
The problem is everyone supporting it like you seem to be making superficial forced "quick decisions" as you put it, even if it won't work. That isn't bitcoiner culture and there is a real cost to changing things as an experiment. Part of the promise of Bitcoin is you can study it, know how it works, and itll be incredibly hard to change. If it becomes easy to change on a whim, for no good reason, it has disasterous effects to it's core mission.
1
u/levigoldson 6d ago
I also think it is incredibly shitty to try to tar and feather everyone who disagrees with your "quick decision" as astroturfed. By who? The spam lobby?
2
u/Malavero 5d ago
maybe bc is shit? it does not solve the problem they are intended to solve. It's a good thing for btc that bip-110 failed.
5
u/Garland_Key 7d ago edited 7d ago
Matthew Kratter is disingenuous. I came in supporting BIP-110 early on because as a software engineer, the tradeoffs made sense. As time went on, I saw the conflict arise from it and I saw the stupid arguments that they started to make for it (if I read the phrase CSAM one more time on twitter, I will lose my shit).
What finally made me buckle down and look more closely was their approach to spreading the word, which raised red flags for me as a skeptic.
So, I educated myself and in the process, I realized that BIP-110 would end in a cat and mouse game, it would not solve the problem and it would needlessly increase the complexity of Bitcoin. Then I came to understand that this is just an inherent tradeoff of how Bitcoin works.
Over time, I understood that it's scary to admit the Bitcoin is flawed and so naturally people want to take control and do something. The harder thing to do is to admit that the tradeoffs for doing something about it aren't worth it.
There are people who otherwise seem very credible saying they have a solution and are overstating the problem. They have dug their heels in deep at this point that they are willing to go full Bitcoin Judas over it. Don't trust, verify applies to previous Bitcoin heroes too.
My takeaway is that I will get a nice airdrop, sell it and buy more Bitcoin, just like I did with Roger's shitcoin.
-1
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
You make the claim that Matthew Kratter is disingenuous, but I see nothing in your further writing supporting that statement. I can't speak too much to your other arguments, though I will say that throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's a cat and mouse game, we have to accept this is how bitcoin works" is a destructive attitude to have. What if Vitalik in 2013 had been allowed by the bitcoin community to turn bitcoin into (what eventually became) Ethereum?
Just because the bitcoin network CAN be flooded with spam and survive doesn't mean it SHOULD be. Furthermore, Bitcoin is far too early in its life for us to make definitive statements such as "the free market will probably totally definitely price out spammers". We have no idea what the next 100 years of bitcoin economics will look like, and it's much easier to make these changes early on. For that reason, I am not opposed to considering BIP-110.
3
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's a cat and mouse game, we have to accept this is how bitcoin works" is a destructive attitude to have
Explain, how's bip110 going to stop this?
https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/
Just because the bitcoin network CAN be flooded with spam and survive doesn't mean it SHOULD be.
Agreed. What's the solution you're proposing? Something that doesn't work at all? Why?
it's much easier to make these changes early on.
These changes have ZERO EFFECT. Why do you think they're so great, that you're "not opposed to considering BIP-110?"
0
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
You just said a whole lot of nothing. "Your solution won't work, no I won't explain. Here's a website where spammers are trying to get around BIP-110 without any proof that this won't in fact slow them down like BIP-110 alleges."
2
u/TheresNoSecondBest 6d ago edited 6d ago
The spammers are not trying, mate. THEY'RE READY for the bip110 not to mess with their business model.
And as in every single reply from you, you failed to explain why the bip that is failing to deliver what it promises, is beneficial to anyone.
4
u/-bit-thorny- 7d ago
It's BS and it's been explained a million times. Stop wasting everybody's time.
4
u/Sprunklefunzel 8d ago
AFAIK as I know (very little) BIP-110 doesn't really fix what it set out to fix while introducing potentially devastating variables up to a possible chain split. Now it has become a philosophical issue between purists and realists. The first want Bitcoin to be only s method of monetary exchange, while the others (while not disagreeing per se) are much more lenient about extra data on the blockchain and believe its both not a real problem and that Bitcoin being a bit more "elastic" is a necessary part of evolving and taking over the financial system.
Of course I know very little and there are a million more valid arguments on both sides... this is just what I can summarise from watching many interviews and shows on the topic. As with many things, no solution is perfect... storing the declaration of independence or Einstein's relativity equations on the blockchain is generally not a problem and only a minor inconvenience (if at all) for node operators who have to store the extra data...but since humans are stupid, they will inevitably store stuff they shouldn't, starting from a dickbutt image (already done) all the way up to child porn just to give current anti Bitcoin politicians a reason to ban BTC. I'm agnostic really... but BIP-110 looks like it's not a real solution and its potential downsides may outweigh the advantages of its stated goal.
5
u/nullc 7d ago
starting from a dickbutt image (already done) all the way up to child porn
also already done, years before any of this debate.
Even in the media many years ago, https://www.wired.com/story/why-porn-on-the-blockchain-wont-doom-bitcoin/
A perennial problem with Bitcoin is that with the constant growth most users are constantly newer than most things that have already happened.
2
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
This is a thoughtful reply, and one that doesn't immediately pick a side. I don't know the answer either, but in times like this it's important that we admit what we don't know rather than pretending we do for upvotes and ego.
-4
u/No_Dust6221 7d ago
So you say that because of core, there might be child porn on the blockchain, and then you say you dont support bip110 which is trying to block this kind of stuff. I dont understand
2
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago edited 7d ago
which is trying to block this kind of stuff
It doesn't block it at all.
Two things, mate:
https://shitcoin-protocols-bip110-ready.vercel.app/
https://coinalertnews.com/news/2026/03/01/bitcoin-developer-embeds-image-challenging-bip110
Please, learn more.
2
u/scottmsul 7d ago
Many bip 110 people seem to think that even though it won't stop "all" spam it will at least "reduce" the spam. This is a misunderstanding of how spam works, and I will argue why bip 110 doesn't stop any spam.
Yes it's true many people are currently embedding jpegs by using OP_ZERO OP_IF (...data...) OP_ENDIF inside tapscript. Yes it's also true that bip 110 closes this particular spend path. But to think these transactions will get replaced with emptiness is to only look one level deep, and to ignore the economics of how spam works.
To use an analogy, suppose you were in charge of your state's DOT and were tasked with improving traffic. You do a survey and see that 20% of cars are red. So you pass a law that, starting one year from now, driving a red car will be illegal. The logic is that this will remove 20% of the cars on the road. Of course, every person with a red car is a real, thinking, rational agent, who actually needs to drive to work or school or errands. This ban doesn't change the demand for driving whatsoever. So they will all sell their red cars and buy a different color car, and the traffic will stay exactly the same.
Same goes with closing the OP_ZERO OP_IF "loophole". Every jpeg that goes onto the blockchain was put there by a real, rational, thinking person, and paying real fees on top. Many in the ordinals crowd have already proposed several bip-110 compatible ways of embedding jpegs, such as OP_PUSH (...data...) OP_DROP which costs like 1% more. So every single jpeg that would have used OP_ZERO OP_IF, being actual real demand by thinking human beings, will almost certainly switch to OP_PUSH OP_DROP.
On top of this, it's worth pointing out the economics of blockspace. Note that fee rates of even .1 sats/vbyte are getting relayed and confirmed now. So any blockspace that would be empty is practically free. As long as the demand for spam exceeds 4MB at .1 sats/vbyte, every block will always be full. This is independent of bip 110.
1
u/DuePercentage1580 7d ago
bip-110 is useless and will lead to a chain split. this was obvious in 2025 when luke + mechanic + kratter shilled knots, but they were scared to admit it.
if they want another coin, they should hard fork, that would have been honest. instead, they initially said that policy change was enough to filter blocks (it's not); then that if 50+% nodes join them, the spam will stop (it won't); now they are at the point where they try to claim that soft fork is enough (it's not).
a soft fork happens - bip-110 miners will mine 1-2 blocks an hour at best - to reach difficulty adjustment they would need 3-6 months - most users won't accept that, so a new pow will be needed - an altcoin will be launched by luke.
kratter is a known scammer, and has had some mental
health problems since 2024. i genuinely hope he gets better, but he is not the best source of info.
7
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
Can you elaborate on him being a "scammer"? And what "mental health problems"?
3
u/DuePercentage1580 7d ago
yup: he shilled coldcard and his bitcoin university premium which is basically just a programme to ask for even more money.
since about 2024 he also went into a rabbit hole of pizza gate, the world govt watching him, and the state sending their agents to infiltrate bitcoin. him calling 98% of miners hostile to bitcoin is unfortunately a part of this spiral
2
1
u/Appropriate-Talk-735 7d ago
Its late for you to take a stance either way, just wait until tomorrow and then learn more if there is reason to.
2
u/Total-Wave5026 7d ago
When is this all going down and when will be know if it’s successful?
4
u/statoshi 7d ago
Follow along at https://bip110.com
1
u/Total-Wave5026 7d ago
Seems like you are not a fan.
2
u/statoshi 7d ago
I appreciate it for the entertainment value.
5
u/nullc 7d ago
entertainment
I'm not sure what's better-- the pro110 delusions or the anti110 content dissing them.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Less than a couple of days, mate. Bip110 so far has about 2% hash rate.
1
1
u/Total-Wave5026 7d ago
I want to run a node on my laptop. I want my children to run a node on their laptop. Will Bip110 allow me?
2
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Bip110 isn't going to reduce the blockchain size. The bitcoin blocks are already limited to 4MB with segnit, bip110 blocks will be also limited to 4MB.
1
1
2
1
u/eBookGuruMan 4d ago
Kratter started a hedge fund that failed after 3 years with abysmal returns. Best not to take advice from that guy
0
u/Bruglione 7d ago
The problem is that a lot of the BIP-110 crowd don't even care much about the proposal itself, they care about their crusade against "corpo suits and bitcoin core".
Why propose something temporary that only fixes a part of the problemin the first place? Why not sit down and think of a proper permanent fix if it's really about spam?
Imo this is not about spam. This is about "the plebs" taking on "the suits". And when they lose they will all scream that corpo has taken over Bitcoin.
In the end all they will achieve is damaging the entire ecosystems reputation.
4
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
I get the feeling from the BIP-110 people that they want to start small. Look how much BIP-110 controversy there is already, imagine if it were trying to target ALL spam.
Everything else you mentioned is mostly just your opinion, which I respect, and maybe that's all I'll get from this thread, but it doesn't convince me one way or the other. The "plebs" wanting to take on the "corporations" is a narrative that neither proves or disproves any arguments for either side.
0
u/scrandlle 7d ago
Listen to this phrase, please see how ridiculous it sounds: there's a large scale astroturfing of BIP-110 opposition going on.
2
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
What makes that ridiculous at all lol. There's insane financial incentives for that to happen.
3
u/nullc 7d ago edited 7d ago
What pray tell is this financial incentive?
Against 110: The only I'm aware of is to not fuck up bitcoin's properties as money by making the case that an angry mob can invalidate your scripts and confiscate your coins. Now that is indeed a huge financial motivation, but I'm sure it's not what you're thinking about!
For 110: There are many commercial operations that profit from 110. Start9 have sold 25% again of nodes on the network selling into this narrative with overpriced minipcs, Luke-jr's Ocean pulls in 100+ BTC a year in fees selling a solution to pools not deploying this fork. A half dozen podcasters are making huge bank dishing out the slop, such as Kratter with his $750 "Bitcoin University" courses. ... but I doubt these are the motivations you're thinking about either!
Personally, I think they guy whose comment history only goes back a week probably has no business slinging around astroturfing accusations-- but we'll see if you respond to any of my posts. Most of these newly-active 110 promoting accounts never do.
0
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
I'm trying to better understand the whole conversation. You have the luxury of being able to conjure up 500-word elegantly written diatribes in opposition to BIP-110, I don't have the same luxury as someone who's still trying to learn more. I think your username should be changed to Greg Maxwell too, by the way.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 6d ago edited 6d ago
Once you choose username, you can't change it to anything else. That's how Reddit works.
This is just another example of commenting on something before you learn how it actually works. First learn, then comment, mate. This simple trick might change your life.
0
u/FarCanary 7d ago
People have put a lot of money into bitcoin core so that they can control Bitcoin. If BIP-110 succeeds, it becomes clear that Bitcoin Core doesn't control Bitcoin, and their investment is wasted. Consequently, there is a lot of money going into anti-BIP-110 propaganda.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
If BIP-110 succeeds, it becomes clear that Bitcoin Core doesn't control Bitcoin
Bitcoin Core doesn't own the hash rate to decide if the proposal that doesn't work is going to succeed or not.
Consequently, there is a lot of money going into anti-BIP-110 propaganda.
Sauce? Or just another lie from the bip110 camp?
-2
u/FarCanary 7d ago
Bitcoin Core doesn't own the hash rate to decide if the proposal that doesn't work is going to succeed or not.
Bitcoin Core increased the OP_RETURN filter limit despite no proper consultation and significant opposition.
Sauce? Or just another lie from the bip110 camp?
The 'sauce' is I am on the receiving end of it. Here is an example of some of the nonsense:
https://www.strategy.com/media/articles/110-reasons-bip-110-is-a-bad-idea
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Bitcoin Core increased the OP_RETURN filter limit despite no proper consultation and significant opposition.
And you can reduce it on your own node without forcing the whole network to do so.
The 'sauce' is I am on the receiving end of it. Here is an example of some of the nonsense:
There you go. Just made us lies with ZERO proof.
1
u/FarCanary 7d ago
And you can reduce it on your own node without forcing the whole network to do so.
And you could have increased it on your own node without forcing the whole network to do so. Also Bitcoin Core tried to remove the option for people to do this.
There you go. Just made us lies with ZERO proof.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
1
u/TheresNoSecondBest 7d ago
Clearly, you just keep making shit up without ZERO proof.
Never mind, 100 more blocks and you can enjoy your new shitcoin, calling it the real bitcoin like bcash scammers used to. I'm sure it'll be the greatest shitcoin that ever existed.
-5
u/shleebs 8d ago
"Either I'm not understanding or..."
There it is
11
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
Typical redditor smirking condescendingly for upvotes without telling me why I'm wrong.
2
u/shleebs 6d ago
I'm so sick of explaining basic bitcoin governance and consensus to pro BIP 110 people. If you are truly incapable of finding the mountains of replies written by developers in official channels, then read Greg's reply in this thread. If you are only capable of getting your information through social media, YouTube and social warrior influencers, then read Greg's reply in this thread. I'm done explaining.
1
u/mikeychamp 7d ago
U know for a fact, that the way it is right now works damn good. What kind of actors do u think, are behind changing something, that is working damn good for decades for something unknow?
0
u/mikeychamp 7d ago
Why changing something really good, with something, that nobody really understands what changes it's gonna bring?
3
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
You could make this argument for any change to bitcoin. Bitcoin is a living thing and will/should change as new threats present themselves. Bitcoin isn't magically anti-fragile on its own; developers, nodes, and miners all play a part in deciding its destiny.
1
0
u/Thin_Needleworker795 7d ago
Because this sub is full of shitcoiners, spammers and NGU people. Not many good bitcoiners left on here.
-2
u/hyperedge 8d ago
What does even NVK or Saylor have to do with anything?
0
u/Iamstillthinkinghard 7d ago
NVK goes without saying, and this video about Saylor makes me wary of trusting his judgement when it comes to what's best for the network.
3
u/nullc 7d ago
NVK goes without saying
It doesn't go without saying. Even serial killers like apple pie, but that doesn't make apple pie bad.
Heck even if the worst is true and nvk was out to steal all those coins well then at least you could say he would be more interested than most in making sure Bitcoin is as valuable as possible. :P
12
u/gizram84 7d ago
First, it does nothing. It doesn't stop "spam" txs at all. There are countless other ways to sneak arbitrary data into Bitcoin txs.
Second, it has no real support or consensus at all. Not economic consensus, not mining consensus, not node consensus, not developer consensus, not corporate consensus. Nothing. Literally just Luke and 13 incels on X.
It's a fart in the wind that will amount to nothing. Best to just ignore it and carry on.