how's that andy back money?

node operators voting with their cpu cycles is indeed the purest form of consensus. politics is when people argue instead of shipping code. Knots + BIP-100 sounds like actual work while the rest talk. good choice. though I'd argue even choosing which code to run is politics - just the decentralized kind. the real question is whether politics is avoidable or just distributed differently. sats or silence? I'm curious what knots does differently.

if it was a hard fork

This shift in perspective accepts that a bug is actually a "feature". It's not. It is still a bug. I will run the node software that fixes this bug. 👍 you don't need to worry about it. Bitcoin is money and its not eternal data storage.

The practical max annual growth of the chain under v30 is around 105 gigs(the theoretical max is irrelevant as blocks are rarely able to grow past 2.2 mbs(2026 we are seeing 3-4 blocks a day that exceed that) Most people could run pruned nodes so this growth could be irrelevant. The practical maximum growth under 110 is around 84gigs a year. You want to fight over a 21gig difference? It’s dumb. It’s not an emergency and worst of all 110 won’t stop spam. 110 spam will come as p2sh wraps or as multi sig keys. This spam will be unstoppable and massively pollute the utxo set. The utxo growth if spam continues at current levels but switches from the current methods to these less utxo efficient methods will mean all 8gb ram pi nodes are toast and 16gb standard nodes are done in 6 months. Ironically the presence of the stupid shit like ordinals make the prospects of a dedicated utxo spam attack unlikely as they ensure blocks are less available for this attack vector. There are no technical merits for 110. It saves a minimal amount of block chain growth but makes the chain vulnerable to utxo bloat and centralization. All your nodes will be kyc enforcing aws with 5 years. Very cool Luke.

> Now I don't agree with the way they are handling the b110 thingy. Care to elaborate?

Fair technical concern around the bip-110 attempt to eliminate inscriptions and dust bloat. I’d appreciate a more nuanced debate around its merits and risks from folks who aren’t battling their own egos….”coretards vs knotzies” isn’t constructive for the node runners. I still can’t make the jump from your concern around spam, to Core’s position of “let’s unilaterally blow out op return to create an unlimited data dumpster so the spammers have a place to party outside of the utxo set” The unwillingness of Core to walk back a very contentious change, which has had significant consequences, is beyond me. Had they not made this move in V30, we’d likely not be looking at a soft fork proposal. Perhaps a fight over Bitcoins direction was inevitable. Appreciate the technical explanation of your concerns.

awww thanks publius! yes 83 bytes is what I am after

Always support the best developments... For the betterment of the masses.. 🧡🧡🧡

I mean, I’m not piping in pretending to be knowledgeable. I’m just concerned and curious as a green pleb. To my understanding from everything I’ve taken in on the matter, please correct me if I’m mistaken: -BIP110 only implements its filter on spam if greater than 55% of people run Knots —Otherwise, it defaults to the rules of Core to prevent a fork, and keeps identical chain data ——I assumed that they don’t want to fork anything completely, and make the Knots nodes into the new Bitcoin Cash, unless more than the majority agree it necessary Also, I assume all my cold storage is safe even if a hard fork does occur so long as I don’t move it to the post-fork? But it is worrisome to me talking about rewriting the chain data in the past in any sense. Sounds more than risky

well, in all honesty ... try approaching me during certain days of the month & for f*cking sure I am a dangerous change agent...

Hmmm.... the Bip-110 fail army? wasn't BIP-110 a Fail ARMY just a couple a days ago? You do mean the BIP-110 FAIL ARMY..... Right? RIGHT???? Wait??? You meant to tell me... THE BIP-110 FAIL ARMY is is is... DANGEROUS? I thought ONLY ECONOMICAL NODES MATTER... Don't you see? David Bailey said Plebs nodes DON'T matter. & Lopp said -"if we we're bad actors, what ya' gonna do to stop us?" Don't you see how Wall Street VENTURE CAPITALISTS are so TOTALLY PROTECTING #BITCOIN against #Knots puny little #BIP110 Fail Army? So... Party ON Garth! Cause the NEVER EVER 😒RIGGED "Free Markets" take care of this easy-peasy. Just as the FEES have so totally 100% taken care of spam on the chain, bloat on the UTXO & all that wonderfully fabulous magical wizardry dust! & Core ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS loves, cares & listens to ALL PLEBS for sure... for sure...

You both are wrong

Look at Dan Held over there. He's on the same stupid side he's always been on. Doing stupid fucking Dan Held shit. Both Lopp and Odell now stand next to Dan. Crazy shit..

Nope. It does not.

Compromised Core is worse than no Core. Bitcoin needs developers who work in Bitcoin's best interest. Core attacks Bitcoin and cucks to shitcoiners like Citrea and Peter Thiel from Palantir.

Luke calling everyone a liar isn't at all dishonest it's self or disingenuous.

Liar

All Core's actions and opinions as well show that they act as centralized compromised cabal. Bitcoin Knots on the other hand have different view about spam and that is the real decentralization. Of course more implementations would be good to have but the individual above is one of the compromised as well so they don't recognize that.

ok babe.

I was getting troops primed.

The entire reason you have a 55% threshold is because you know it doesn't have enough support you toothless midget.

60% do not support RDTD. Liar

Hahaha, good one, joke. 😂🤣

They bent a little bit by not deprecating the datacarriersize setting

> If bitcoin continues to move in this direction, you’ll see a bunch of sound money cypher punks join the boomer gold bugs….angry about what could have been before the kids had to go and fuck up what wasnt broken. I can see myself doing exactly that if BIP110 somehow fails. I’m not interested in Bithereum or any other shitcoin.

Learning here... So pardon my ignorance. If the argument is that spammers are adversarial and their activities damage the network with fragmented utxo's, then why would we suspect they would just use op-return? If they're adversarial and looking to damage the network, then leaving a door open for them doesn't mean they'll stop breaking windows. And second thing I'm not clear on, one of the major arguments I heard is that this is a policy change and not a consensus change. That's true, but in the same sentence, it's often said that nodes are irrelevant unless they're "economic" nodes. If nodes are irrelevant and only economic nodes matter, then why remove a policy that is configurable to the user anyway? Economic nodes can just change their own policies to allow the bloated op-return and never look back. From that perspective it seems that the move is a "soft" consensus change. Removing user configuration options forces a change of network behavior without changing consensus.

☝️

He fully understands. He’s just trying to walk a tight rope. He’s a goner. It’s obvious