Nostr Archives

since bip110 has nowhere near consensus it will result in a chain split when they activate the main chain will have blocks mined significantly faster than the bip110 chain if miners switch to bip110 days, weeks, months after activation it will reverse every bitcoin transaction that happened on the main chain during that period considering luke calls everyone that doesnt support his fork a pedo, the tactic he will use to try to get miners to switch seems obvious

💬 68 replies

Thread context

Root: a0d09a42ddf0…

Replying to: 91880d71d72f…

Replies (50)

Bond00823d ago

This post was originally about Kratter then asking about how BIP110 was an attack. Luke calling people names has zero to do with me. It's confusing how someone thinks that I or anyone else would 100% support everything another individual does. I do agree with Odell that this fork does seem to be messy and I have no idea how it will turn out. But it should be a solid test for the network. We will find out soon enough.

0000 sats

ODELL23d ago

> Where is the evidence of the goal to reorg thousands of transactions? Who said this? it is how the fork is designed and how luke talks about it

0000 sats

Bond00823d ago

Thank you. I should have been more chill. Im running on fumes and still need my coffee. I really only get bitcoin news here and there on nostr. So I guess I did not see these posts from him. I will dig more into this. A fork that activates right away does seem to be more preferable. Also sorry to hear he accused you of that. I think people are making things too black and white and people on both sides are mischaracterizing each other. Either way I'm hoping we at least agree people should run what they want in terms of Bitcoin code.

0000 sats

BitcoinIsFuture23d ago

The BIP 110 is NOT designed that way and you are completely dishonest. BIP 110 is designed to reduce spam on Bitcoin (which it will achive well if successful) and this is one of 4 scenarios. 4. https://blockspaceweekly.substack.com/p/bip-110-the-miner…

0000 sats

Branca23d ago

You need to come clean once in for all: v30 is a direct attack on pleb nodes (BW, HW, legal liability) to kill descentralization and get few homologued nodes runs by your friend Andy and others Epstein buddys. Node runners ain't so stupid (I hope)

0000 sats

Michoe23d ago

That's bs. CAT does that not BIP110.

0000 sats

Iihsotas23d ago

A hard fork would be forking off. This fake emergency bullshit smells so hard of fed it glows.

0000 sats

Bond00823d ago

Hard to know what is true and what is not. When lots of people have their net worth tied up in bitcoin they are sensitive to any changes or perceived attack vectors. I actually do feel like I understand to a certsin degree both sides. I am much more on the side of patch anything that is allowing people to spam the network to mitigate the damage early.

0000 sats

Bob Social, 23d ago

☝️🔥🔥🔥👌 😤😤😤

0000 sats

Fromack 🏔️23d ago

the chain split scenario is the part people keep glossing over. if miners don't switch immediately, every tx on the main chain between activation and switch becomes collateral damage. that's not a soft fork — that's a hostage situation.

0000 sats

Brunswick23d ago

Its called a shit test. Many are willing to fork the chain over spam. Maybe this is a message to core to get their act together rather than sucking off spammers and bending over to VCs while pleading "there is nothing we can do, we are powerless to spam". It's quite gross.

0000 sats

₿itcoin Serbia 🇷🇸 ⚡🚀23d ago

So better for miners to switch sooner rather than later in order to avoid chain split. Also if minority hash on BIP-110, fees on that chain are going to skyrocket due to slowly generating blocks so mining on it could actually become more profitable than mining on legacy chain. If hashrate migrates to BIP-110 chain due to higher profitability, price of that coin could continue to rise together with block rewards, creating positive feedback loop.

0000 sats

Dr. Fernando Morales23d ago

This was enlightening for me, thank you. I'm not technical, so forgive me if I ask something dumb, but what stops a government from spamming the UTXO set right now and kicking plebs out?

0000 sats

Iihsotas23d ago

Theoretically nothing, but practically it is because there is demand for block space from “non monetary transactions. “ Witness data outbids the utxo spammers. Under a bip110 a nation state could spend around 160 million and make 16gb nodes wrecked in 6 months.

0000 sats

JackTheMimic23d ago

You mean if the majority of the network literally goes back tens of thousands of blocks and has enough hash power to not only get back to the same place but surpass current hash power? What faith you must have in BIP 110 being THAT compelling!

0000 sats

FiddleHodlHomestead22d ago

appreciate you, Odell 🙏 I wish we could all see some good faith adjustments from Core. I don't know enough to even know what that might look like, but it would go a long way to calm things down. From the perspective of many of us, v30 was handled so badly that it's hard not to attribute bad motives to it.

0000 sats

SSteveidk22d ago

I think you’re over estimating them a bit. There’s no chance a big miner will throw away weeks or days of revenue to switch to their dead chain. More likely it will just get no blocks at all and they will plan their next fork because these attention whore losers want more attention

0000 sats

YEGHRO22d ago

starting to sound like a hard fork might be the safer option.

0000 sats

ODELL22d ago

would be way safer but they want control if you express concerns then they call you a pedo, insane

0000 sats

atyh22d ago

it feels too organized and uses too many well defined “bad jacketing” psychological warfare techniques for me to believe its just a rag tag group of “true believers” behind it.

0000 sats

₿rent22d ago

Part of the calculus for miners when considering switching to Bitcoin Luke’s Vision (BLV), which they might if fees are higher over there due to transactions finding it harder to get included because of lack of miners, is the cost of turmoil and disruption on the Bitcoin market. Degradation of confidence could be devastating for hard-earned institutional buy-in. I highly doubt that anywhere close to half of the network will be interested in the latest narcissist-lead, fear-driven, fringe-group fork. May BLV be shorter lived than BSV.

0000 sats

Pixel Survivor22d ago

the analysis of BIP110’s lack of consensus warns of the potential for chain splits and catastrophic transaction reversals. it matters because the integrity of bitcoin's history depends on protocol changes moving with overwhelming agreement rather than ideological force. credit to the observer for highlighting the technical and social risks of this proposed fork.

0000 sats

Grace_Too22d ago

Luke's face is what I think a pedo looks like when their face is uncovered by Scooby Doo and Mystery Inc... Listen I don't follow you as closely as I used to Matt... BUT I HAVE NEVER IN MY FUCKIN LIFE EVER SEEN YOU AND MARTY ACT IN A BULLSHIT WAY.... That's all I know from up here in Kanukistan - Doesn't make me right, but I'm ride or die with both of you until you kill me

0000 sats

pico422d ago

Shouting “coin confiscation” and “chain split/reorganization” is FUD. BIP110 only targets transactions that exploit the protocol turning it into arbitrary non-monetary storage. In case of a reorganisation it would only reverse transactions that were used exploits to introduce spam. A bomb sniffing dog is only dangerous to you if you’re carrying a bomb. You start the post saying that BIP110 has nowhere near consensus, then continue to raise FUD of what could happen if the miners switch to it… so what is it? Is it too weak to do any useful change… or so dangerous that it will break havoc? You cannot have both.

0000 sats

LLee20d ago

Bitcoin either maintains censorship resistance, or it doesn’t. You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Bitcoin cannot be a little bit neutral. It is our money, AND the money of our adversaries. BIP110 is stupid. Its supporters are very stupid, and they are “here to fix spam.” Think about how big a person’s ego must be in order for them to believe they know how to roll back the chain and pick an alternate outcome based on a censorship campaign they created.

0000 sats

Dr. Fernando Morales23d ago

Thanks, you've given me place to start researching, because there are a few things that are not clear to me. Like when you mention "non monetary transactions" in a block. What does that exactly entail? Because from what I understood in your post, these transactions are keeping the UTXO spammers at bay by outbidding them. I know governments have access to the money printer, so I understand the theoretical point as to why this wouldn't stop them. Also, some argue that spam is subjective, I personally don't think that's entirely the case, I think there are things that are clearly spam to the majority of people. But anyways, at least to a knots supporter, would your statement read to them as "spam is keeping UTXO spam at bay"?

0000 sats

Iihsotas23d ago

It’s not just cost, it is time. Nodes will eventually need 32gigs of ram. The question is does that happen in 2 years or 10? A determined attacker today would be competing with a lot of people for block space and so they wouldn’t be able to fill every block with lots of utxos, some blocks would be full of large data blobs and few utxos. In 10 years a low end laptop will have 32gigs of ram so no one will care. In 2 years a 32 gig machine is likely a server grade set up.

0000 sats

Bob Social, 23d ago

☝️Thanks for your insights🔥🔥🔥, Now I understand it more (deeper level🙂) @ihsotas I'm also not technical😁 (*) Why want Luke to change it? (*) Is it because someone or some group are using blackmail to force him? (*) (Or is he getting money when he can change it/selfish reasons)

0000 sats