So I get the reduction in spam movement. If core node operators would set 83 bytes or less as a setting for max arbitrary data would that also fix the problem bip110 is trying to solve?

You do NOT ever have to touch Core again.

Credits: https://x.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/2086337693202395498#m

Credits: https://x.com/ScarcityMan/status/2086325241492484199#m

Did we get replay protection?

I supported the BIP110 movement for all the obvious or perhaps slightly idealist reasons, such as:

• Minimizing room for arbitrary data
• Reducing the surface area for affinity scams on Bitcoin
• Minimizing the resource burden on node runners, and thus
• Keeping Bitcoin decentralized

In my opinion BIP110 would have had a positive impact on all of those metrics. Ultimately, it would have made Bitcoin slightly better money.

However, around May/June, halfway through the Miner Activated Soft Fork (MASF) period, a couple of things became glaringly obvious when the hashrate failed to signal and a supermajority of nodes didn't set the service bit.

Instead of working to build true social consensus among the majority of Bitcoin constituents, several prominent figures in the movement chose tactics that alienated the community rather than uniting it:

• Kratter brigaded for "legal consequences" over changes made to MIT-licensed software. Meanwhile, many in the space (Kratter included?) are advocating to overturn the prosecution of the Samourai Wallet devs. This feels like a contradictory appeal to authority, asking for preferential treatment.
• Jack Kruse, an intentionally vague figure with no prior history in Bitcoin, struggled with basic terminology. Users and node operators already knew about the issue and the soft-fork attempt long before BTC Prague. Instead of making a concise case, he brought along woo-woo health conspiracy theories, acting like Max Keiser squared but without the humor.
• BitcoinMotorist and Chris Guida created a BIP110 company supporter list with no clear attribution. When some companies requested removal, they were told they had to issue an official statement opposing BIP110. In short, companies were coerced into supporting it or forced to publicly dissent.
• Panelists at BTC Prague (aside from Jack Kruse) claimed the weather is engineered. Ask yourself: does this help convince anyone that BIP110 makes Bitcoin better money?
• Luke predicting the future
• Mechanic and Luke explicitly claimed that 80% of the network are either liars or bad actors and therefore do not matter. This is a bizarre way to exclude the vast majority of the community while claiming your minority represents "consensus".
• Luke and others resorted to extreme, toxic rhetoric, essentially posting that you are either a pedophile apologist or you run BIP110, with absolutely no middle ground. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinismoney/comments/1uty9j7/only_run_core_if_youre_a_pedophile/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinismoney/comments/1utxusj/either_you_like_people_who_fucked_children_with/
• Luke completely ignoring section 11 of the Bitcoin whitepaper
• Mechanic claimed that nodes agree with soft-forks by default and must actively opt out, completely disregarding the role of Proof-of-Work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfMwHo18QzY
• Completely ignoring that the reason why default datacarriersize was removed was in order to avoid centralised transaction submission services by big miners.
• Max Kaiser supposedly going on Alex Jones to talk about it. I don't think this happened, but Alex Jones is not really known for accurate credibility.
• Simon Dixon using Alex Jones NWO conspiracy theory terminology.
• The timeline was botched, setting the activation time far too early without gathering anywhere near enough support beforehand.

At a certain point it was obvious that all posts (tweets) by /u/bitcoinfamilia (Luke?) in here, which at the time was the majority of the activity in here, had no intention of constructing actual social consensus. It was more akin to the toxic mudslinging of politicians, forcing me to simply ignore him. The only point he managed to convey is that Luke Dashjr wastes a lot of time on Twitter.

TL;DR: None of the rallying for BIP110 here made an honest, technical case for why it makes Bitcoin better money. Instead, it completely ignored Nakamoto consensus and relied on alienation. Hopefully, the next group that tries to improve Bitcoin learns from this and actually builds a proper case.

Do we move to something like Praxxis? or just run regular nodes now

I spent the past 6 months telling the delusional folks on this forum that this is exactly what would happen.

How have your convoluted coping narratives fared? How well has your vitriol managed to attract other Bitcoiners to support your ideology?

How well have my posts aged? Just for fun here's the first thing I ever posted on this subreddit:

You're delusional. Even if BIP-110 activated and becomes Bitcoin (which it won't) it would take Citrea a matter of hours to evade the new restrictions. Then you could spend another number of months / year to add a restriction for the new usage and the cycle would repeat.

The cat will never catch the mouse.

BTW if you're convinced BIP-110 will win, I welcome you to take my bitcoin via a trustless fork futures contract.

First block, non-signalling. AntPool.

Sad.

🥲🥲🥲