Bro you are being lied to, sorry. BIP 110 creates two different projects with just a single bigger OP_RETURN transaction. You can bend around it all you want, but this IS going to be hardfork! There is NOTHING in between.
A soft fork is something you can ‘opt-in’ to, but you don’t have to. A hardfork is rejecting transactions that don’t follow the rules.
It kind of makes me tired how still every bitcoiner seems to be uneducated about this “issue”. The only issue is, that this got merged and released whilst being discussed heavily. But the change itself is absolutely the right thing, which should have happened long ago. It’s not that it will be “more Ethereum like” afterwards, it’s actually the other way around, but with less UTXO bloat! Spam is already possible today and it’s already cheaper to do over inscriptions, which are on-chain as well! So if you truly want to go against spam, then you’d have to roll back the taproot update and live with a forever broken lightning network. That will be the REAL shitcoin.
The 4MB Block limit remains. If you buy a 20 TB harddisk AVAILABLE TODAY, your node will be able to eat FULL blocks for the next 95 years, where you’d have to upgrade to a bigger harddisk. Then you buy a 40 TB harddisk for 0.5 USD (because that will probably be a micro-sd card at that point) and you are ready for the next 100 years.
This whole thing is an absolute non-issue, all the problems were already there before core30 and core30 even reduces spam. But the discussion is and was important, pre-merge! I hate bitcoin core for doing that and I support node democracy. But I don’t want to live in Luke Dashjrs distopian shithole world view.
I started running the BIP110, but after trying to understand both sides on it all I just downgraded back to regular knots. Honestly a lot of this is way over my head. I believe that 98% of all of us want Bitcoin for money purposes, but I also realize that there are some super shady wealthy people that will find a way to attack bitcoin at its weakest areas, where would that be? Somehow using filthy money to buy developers maybe to attack it in the nodes? I have no doubt it will continue to be attacked because this is the biggest threat to them. That all being said, I kinda got uncomfortable on the BIP110 and since it’s way over my head I downgraded back to regular knots.
Sorry, but this kind of fear-mongering without any concrete arguments is unconvincing. What speaks against actually implementing the OP_Return limit, which Core30 has set unacceptably high and which was in place until 2024? Are these perhaps unspoken plans to launch new DeFi projects on the proven and successful Bitcoin chain?
From my perspective, it seems like the difference between the adversaries and proponents of BIP 110 is somewhat like the difference between those who want to make (fiat) money from (fiat) money by making “financial instruments” or “fintech products,” etc. using (fiat) money in creative ways to, well–make money FROM money, rather than to use money AS money, in a more strict sense, as simply a (hopefully stable) store of and exchange for value (of some kind).
I find myself on the pro-BIP-110 side, and even the pro The-CAT side of the argument, after so many years of seeing how fiat money has been gamed and gambled and used in ingenious or devious ways to enrich some while debasing and devaluing fiat money itself.
I mean, who cares? Writing data to the chain is limited and expensive. It follows economical incentives. A normal BTC transaction will always be WAYY cheaper than spam. But if this ensures that blocks are actually filled all the time, then how can anyone be against it. This would make it proof for a time where the block reward no longer matters and miners only survive off transactions fees.
I also don’t see a lot of usecases, but economical incentives will anyways go against it. Bitcoin will not become the dropbox of the world LOL, this is so ridiculous.
The 4mb block limit remains! Which is the most important point in this whole discussion. Pushing OP_RETURN just means being neutral towards how bitcoin is being used.
All the pitchforks pointed against this update use arguments against it that make no sense, because it’s all already possible, all on-chain, cheaper and so on, so what are we even talking about here.
I will not sell my BIP110 coins nor my core30 coins, if the chain splits, because I’m actually scared to be on the wrong ship (eventually, the public decides). But I’m sure this is a planned attack. Somebody wanted this war. I’m just not sure which side it was. Both side say it’s the other one.
I’m fine with either chain aswell, but from a purely technical perspective, I see ZERO arguments against Core30. Absolutely zero, the change makes sense from A to Z and I haven’t heard/read a single good argument against it.
The behavior you describe is accurate (albeit temporary, since one side will ultimately win). But the normal term for this is “chain split”, not “hard fork”. There are established definitions for the terms “hard fork” and “soft fork”, so applying a new definition to them only causes confusion around symantics rather than substance in a discussion. It is, therefore, generally a good idea to stick to the broadly-understood definitions for terms.
The normal definition for “soft fork” is that the new rules of the fork are tighter – meaning they are concensus-valid according to the previous rules, such that an asymetry is created. The soft-fork chain rejects blocks that do not conform to the new concensus rules, while the old chain accepts blocks which do conform to the new concensus rules.
The normal definition for “hard fork”, on the other hand, makes it distinct, in that this classification of fork does not contain the above asymetry – blocks which are valid according to the new (looser) rules are concensus-invalid according to the previous rules.
To restate the above from a practical perspective, a hard fork requires all old nodes to update, while a soft fork does not. BIP-110 is, by the normal definition of the term, a soft fork.
Bankers spamming infinite imaginary digits got involved with bloating OP_RETURN. Funny how Andy Back’s name shows up on Epstein’s island guest list—and Epstein’s digits funded Blockstream. Now we have 10,000+ altcoin tokens, all banker coins. BIP-110 is just the broom sweeping up the spam they created. Sianara, trash.
You should have become a lawyer. Ppl like you can keep child molesters out of prison with their blabla and bending-around-stuff. All thanks to unnecessary complexity a normal person struggles with understanding, that is used to diverge from the point and bow down before the faces superiority.
I really don’t care if this is a terminology issue. The chain will split, we will have 2 bitcoins after, and time will tell which one will win. And I highly vote against that happening for such a silly change that DOES make sense.
These are all arguments that are totally irrelevant to bitcoin. Because some people are bad, doesn’t mean a change to the rules is.
You are like the people who don’t buy the best electric car out there, simply because they hate a single person working there. Ignoring all facts, ignoring that there also are tons and tons of good people.
The argument isn’t ‘bad people = bad code.’ The argument is: the same system that prints infinite digits funded the bloat, the same people are connected to it, and now the network is cleaning up the mess they made. BIP-110 isn’t about personalities—it’s about preserving Bitcoin from the same extraction model that captured everything else. Convergence means seeing the pattern across gold, oil, banking, and now OP_RETURN. The broom isn’t political. It’s just sweeping.
You make it about personalities, don’t you see that? If you want to "clean up the mess”, you’d have to revert taproot, which will put the lightning network to the grave. For a war about a thing that is ridiculously stupid. But to block spam you need to get rid of inscriptions. Fighting OP_RETURN alone is useless.
Check Rene Pickhardt’s video/blogs about this issue, if you truly care. I doubt you truly care, because so far, there were zero arguments from you against this update. Only about everything around it.
Actually, you are the one bending around terminology. The terms have established definitions, and those who try to change definitions are the type who try to confuse an issue that is otherwise clear. And by the way, I hate lawyers, so I consider this a vicious insult, particularly in the context of supporting child predators. If you have any common decency, I would like an apology.
That’s just it – the chain split (because it is a soft fork) will be temporary (days at most), and there will be only one bitcoin after. Not two. This is one of the critical differences between hard and soft forks. There will not be a “BIP-110 coin” and “Corev30 coin” indefinitely (like there is a BTC and BCH long term, for example). Either the BIP-110 chain will become heavier and wipe out the other chain, or it won’t. In the end, only one chain will survive (the only question is which one).
Now it is true that the most zealous anti-spam proponents, if the soft fork fails, might foolishly decide to turn the soft fork into a hard fork (by adding replay protection, etc. and expanding the rules making BIP-110 compliant blocks invalid by original consensus rules), but that is a separate discussion and would apply to only a tiny minority of BIP-110 supporters. Such a hard fork would not be BIP-110 anymore and would quickly vanish into obsolescence as all other failed hard forks have (like the aforementioned BCH).
Thank you for this. I too think it’s important to use established terms in dialogue. These things are complicated enough without altering definitions of words, in the midst of a hot debate. Both a hard ford, or a soft fork can cause a chain split.
Yes, this is a critical point. In fact, I would say “will cause” (hence the word “fork”).
Yes. The difference is whether the rules on each side of the chain split are mutually exclusive, or if they are asymmetrical (one set of rules is valid on both sides of the split, the other not). This is what makes BCH different from Taproot. There is not a “no-Taproot” bitcoin chain still floating around since it was wiped out by the heaver “with-Taproot” chain. But there is a BCH chain still floating around, despite it being orders of magnitude lighter than the BTC chain.
Before SegWit, a native witness output like OP_0 <20-byte> was just an ordinary script to old nodes, and was effectively anyone-can-spend under old consensus. A miner could include a spend of it with no valid witness logic at all, and old nodes would accept the block.
After SegWit activation, that same spend fails consensus unless it obeys the new witness rules. For a native witness program, BIP141 requires the scriptSig to be exactly empty, and then the witness must satisfy the program.
But fair point – I don’t know if any miners mined such newly-invalid blocks around the time of the activation. If they did, then it was a short chain split that quickly resolved (I couldn’t find any definitive evidence of this though from a quick cursory search). So I take what I said back – if the new rules of a soft fork do not invalidate something that is actively being mined, then there could in fact be a soft fork that doesn’t result in any chain split.
I’m sorry I brought up the child molester thing, but I wanted to make a point very clear. You are bending around an important point by making it a “terminology issue”.
“There will not be a “BIP-110 coin” and “Corev30 coin” indefinitely”
Can you elaborate on that? BSV and BCH still exist, and those were chain splits as well (by a hardfork, if it’s that important to you). And they still have a community. A small one, but my point is, it never died.
Thanks for your involvement into this discussion btw. May not sound like it but I appreciate it.
How so? You mean because everyone and their mother switched, right? But a segwit transaction cannot be processed by nodes with non-segwit software, right?
