BIP 110 is a load of CRAP! It's a hardfork, you guys believing otherwise lie to yourself!

Random
21

Thanks, it is sometimes hard to intuit a person’s emotions from text online.

Yes, this is indeed the reason for there being the two types of forks “soft” and “hard”.

In a soft fork, you create new rules which are also valid according to the old rules. So imagine the old rule was “only mammals allowed”. The new rules could be “only dogs allowed”. Since dogs are mammals, that means any blocks which conform to the new rules and are part of the heaviest chain (the one with the most accumulated POW), will be accepted by all nodes, whether or not those nodes were updated to enforce the new rules.

Now assume this “mammals” vs “dogs” scenario is a contentious debate, and there is not broad consensus among miners right out of the gate. Say there are some miners who are really passionate about mining “cats”, and they do not want to change. When the soft fork activates, some miners will adhere to the new “dogs only” rules, and a chain split will emerge as soon as one of those other miners includes a “cat”. Cats are mammals, so they would be allowed on the “mammals only” chain, but not allowed on the “dogs only” chain.

At this point, these two sides of the chain split will start accumulating POW independently. If the “dogs only” chain accumulates more POW than the chain with “cats”, it will wipe out the opposing chain, and Bitcoin would continue from that point onward under the “dogs only” rules.

On the other hand, if the “mammals only” side of the chain maintains the majority of the POW, it will grow to a point where the “dogs only” chain has no path to ever catch up, and activity on the “dogs only” chain will rapidly become unusable (for multiple reasons, such as the hash rate dropping too quickly for the difficulty adjustment to compensate making it impossible to mine, replay attacks, etc.). At some point they will have to give up, either due to the financial cost of continuing to mine a frozen chain, or to change the consensus rules yet again to turn their failed chain into a hard fork (like adding replay protection rules, etc) so that it can continue to live on (into obscurity) as a separate coin.

Now let’s walk through a similar exercise for a hard fork. Let’s say the old rules are “mammals only”, and the new rules are “birds only”. Now these are mutually exclusive (anyone who mines a dog will be rejected by everyone who is mining “birds only”, and anyone who mines a chicken will be rejected by everyone who is mining “mammals only”). Furthermore, all historic nodes (since they are running the “mammals only” rules) will reject all “birds only” blocks right out of the gate. Only users who actively update their node software to “birds only” will be able to participate in the hard fork. Because the two rule sets are mutually exclusive and have no overlap, there is no chance of one wiping out the other, and both can continue indefinitely on their divergent paths.

22

You’re arguing against something I never said. I didn’t mention Taproot. I didn’t mention Lightning. I didn’t say BIP-110 alone fixes everything.

I said: 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. That’s not about personalities—it’s about patterns. Gold, oil, banking, OP_RETURN—same extraction model, different wrapper.

If BIP-110 is ‘useless’ alone, why fight it so hard? Why not let it pass and keep working on the rest? The resistance tells me it’s not useless at all.

As for Rene’s content—I’ve read it. Good analysis. Doesn’t change the pattern.

The broom doesn’t have to sweep everything at once to be worth using.

If the broom offends you, you’re welcome to keep the dust.

23

Ah I think you misunderstood me. This huge explanation is great, but I already know the difference. I meant why you’d assume that the other chain “is gone after just a few days at max”, but it seems it’s not actually gone in your view, but simply “irrelevant”, which puts us on the same ground again.

24

Tell me your vision of the future, how will bitcoin maintain security, once the block reward is so small, that it’s actually irrelevant?

Because empty blocks ain’t cut it. Either it’s filled with what you call spam or transactions. Transactions will always make sense, because they are severely cheaper. Spam, which is optional and unnecessary, will not make sense, IF blocks are filled with “monetary transactions”.

Why do you hate full blocks? Why do you want to risk bitcoins security? Or what’s your explanation against these points?

Because you can’t have both, if the world isn’t heavily adopting to mainlayer transaction. I believe that we need the “spam” for the empty blocks. It will be absent in times of high mainlayer usage. But if vsats are above 1 sat, people will use the lightning network anyways.

25

No, I mean it is gone. Firstly, pointing out the obvious, but you are assuming that the soft fork will fail. I don’t think this is a foregone conclusion. Obviously if it succeeds, then it wipes out the competing chain and there is left only one BIP-110 compliant chain. I think the misunderstanding is in the other case (if BIP-110 fails)

If it fails, the most likely scenario is that it simply freezes. This would literally be the end of that branch of the chain (not merely becomming irrelevant, but litterally ended). No new blocks can be mined in this scenario, due to an impossibly high difficulty compared to the hash rate mining it. In this scenario, it becomes impossible for the BIP-110 chain to reach the next difficulty adjustment, since no blocks can be mined.

I say this is the most likely failure scenario, because the large players in the mining space (where most of the hash rate is controlled) cannot afford to go more than a few days without block rewards. If BIP-110 fails, that fact will be clear rather quickly, and any miners who are in support of it will start pointing their hash rate back to the original chain, to keep the lights on. The more who do this, the faster the remaining miners will follow suit, and the hash rate will crash to near zero, thus ending the chain.

At this point, some actors on the failed BIP-110 side may decide to convert their anti-spam chain to a hard fork in order to un-freeze it (by making some hard concensus rule changes, like manually setting a lower difficulty, adding replay protection, etc.) A hard fork only requires a single person to mine new concensus rules, so the chances of this happening are probably also rather high. But if that happens, this hypothetical hard fork will not be BIP-110 anymore. This fact will be clear, since all of the blocks mined after such a hard fork will be rejected by all nodes on the network, including any BIP-110 nodes that might still be running. It will be its own thing and its own new coin. This is not a BIP-110 side of a chain split fading into irrelevance. This would be a different blockchain entirely (which, yes, would fade into irrelevance, but that is beside the point).

27

You’re assuming spam is the only way to fill blocks. It’s not.

Security doesn’t come from full blocks. It comes from fees. Fees come from demand for block space. Demand comes from people using Bitcoin for what it’s for: monetary transactions.

If blocks are empty, fees are low. If fees are low, security is cheap. If security is cheap, it’s not security.

The solution isn’t spam. It’s adoption. Real adoption. People using Bitcoin as money, not as a JPEG archive.

Lightning is part of that adoption. But Lightning depends on mainchain fees that reflect actual demand, not artificial spam that disappears when real demand shows up.

You’re arguing that we need spam to fill blocks until adoption arrives. I’m arguing that spam delays adoption by making the chain expensive to run and pushing people to custodial solutions.

If you believe in Bitcoin, you believe in monetary transactions. Not spam. Not JPEGs. Not data bloat.

Full blocks from real use? Great. Full blocks from artificial spam? That’s not security—it’s a subsidy for something else.

BIP-110 doesn’t kill fees. It just makes sure fees come from people who actually want to use Bitcoin for what it was designed for.

2 Likes
29

Doesn’t sound like there’s a lot of evidence against bip 110. More just about the people that are in charge of writing the code and implementation/maintenance. I’m very far from technical on the subject but the way I understand bip 110 is that it basically returns Bitcoin to the state it was in in 2022. If that’s the case then why is it that dangerous?

1 Like
30

The Unwrapping

They can’t see:

· The words are the cage
· The system speaks through them
· Their defending the extraction machine
· The dust is them

The Punchline

The system wrapped them in their language, their logic, their client, their spam, their dollars.

They think their defending Bitcoin.

Their defending the carnival.

The bench is unwrapped. :smirking_face:

31

Not if people are using lightning for almost all transactions. Be aware, that we are a mere 6 years away, before the transaction fees are becoming higher than the block reward (in case of full blocks and higher fees). And who do you expect to use the mainlayer for daily transactions? People in the grocery stores, waiting at the cashier for the next block? No, clearly we need to make sure that block space is filled, but non-monetary data become economically insensible in case of high concestion of monetary transactions. And this is exactly the case.

But you you believe that in 6 years, everyone will sue bitcoin daily for monetary transactions, then good luck. Because if that doesn’t happen, expect a big decline in hashing power.

I really don’t see behind your thinking… Do you think, more people will join “water sports”, if there is ONLY stand up paddles? Don’t you think, more people would do “water sports”, if there are jet skis, wakeboarding, banana boat, SUP, kyte-surfing, windsurfing, sailing and so on?

It’s the same concept here. More services on bitcoin = More potential users.

And what is a monetary transaction? One with 0 value sent? One with no OP_RETURN data attached? Research about what the very first bitcoin transaction actually contained and tell me again that this was a monetary transaction and not spam.

Also, all of YOUR “monetary” transactions are spam to me, because they are of no use to me, but I anyways have to store it on my node. What is of no use to me, equals spam.

Your concept of spam does not make sense, sorry.

It’s the miners that get more fees and remain around, that is adding security, not the spam itself…

At this point, Im 99% sure that you watch Matthew Kratter on Youtube. He has the same non-arguments and is attacking bitcoin with useless info and personal attacks only. It’s all based on nothing. I’m sorry to inform you, that I am pretty sure he sold or shorted Bitcoin successfully. He is deleting every comment that is calling him out on his shit (meaning, he read them) and continues to promote the same arguments video by video. He is corrupt and he lost track, but I guess his house in beverly hills doesn’t pay off itself and he is at an age where he probably wants to retire, but catch one big last fish. I’m pretty sure that Luke Dashjir and he were bought, because the arguments simply don’t make sense and it’s not that Luke is an idiot… He simply writes “liar” to everyone countering his arguments. Just check his twitter.

32

It is not. I’m fine with either, although I’d prefer core30.

If things like that split the community, then we should go back. But there is literally zero arguments against it from a technical point of view.

33

You’ve moved from debating Bitcoin to attacking people. That tells everyone what they need to know. I’m done here. :rofl:

2 Likes
34

The system trembled when Knots emerged. It trembles more with ProductionReady. It will keep trembling with every new horse.

The stable is emptying. The bench is filling.

The network was never theirs. :smirking_face:

1 Like
35

Here is your evidence btw: https://charts.bitbo.io/tx-per-day/

TX volume stagnates since 2017.

36

What if both sides are controlled? We need more options. Plain and simple.

It’s easy to argue into triviality. My understanding of the changes BIP-110 brings is it limits OP RETURN. I like the idea of that. So I run it.