Piotr #BIP-110

This was such a beautiful moment when Nick Szabo took the young Stephan Livera under his wing and taught him about op return

Don’t be a fence sitter! BIP-110 or die trying

@satfillbch Show me one thing that isn't turning into a shitshow and is actually worth storing value in.

@piotr Just the fact that you guys are battling back and forth on this BS shows Bitcoin is a shitshow and doesn't deserve to store any value.

Regardless of whether BIP-110 is successfully activated, it has already made one thing clear: it shows who is who in Bitcoin. This is especially true for Bitcoin "influencers." It reveals where their incentives lie.

@giacomozucco Don't care, running BIP-110.

Running BIP-110

@Jethroe111 Holding, signaling for BIP-110

GM. Another angry morning as George opens X to rant and rail; I am really important and you have to listen to me! Wait! That wasn't me. That was Back, Lopp, Shinobi. I'm holding Bitcoin; don't give a shit. I run a node. Knots. Sparrow wallet. Signaling for BIP110. Legend.

Jameson Lopp with the Post of the Day 🏆

Refreshing to see more Bitcoiners saying this more often out loud. While I think Lightning was a good idea in concept and still has potential, I’m open to being wrong about it… Meanwhile, there is no doubt that Taproot and the Witness Discount need to be re-examined under closer scrutiny.

@GrassFedBitcoin @jimmysong Segwit and Taproot are attacks on Bitcoin, Popescu was right BIP-110

I respect the humility of course, but this exceeds that and becomes paralysis. Bitcoin is not entirely static. Segwit and Taproot were enormous changes with some horrible consequences. BIP110 is an extremely minor guardrail placed on the latter and it is easy to conclude both that it is necessary given the damage taproot did in practice whilst vanishingly unlikely to have further unforseen consequences itself.

I am not "for" or "against" BIP110. The reason being that I don't know enough about the system to know the consequences of either path. We'll know a little more when the soft fork resolves one way or the other, but currently, I have little idea of how anything plays out.

❗️Follow the money. The grim reality: the future of the Bitcoin protocol is controlled by fiat-funded organizations Brink, Chaincode Labs, OpenSats, and HRF, all of which consolidate control and fiercely oppose decentralization. BIP-110 ends their stranglehold. 🧡

Every civilization falls the moment it decides it knows better than human nature: “We do not want a church that will move with the world. We want a church that will move the world. The great marches of civilization have not come from the clever, the adaptable, or the fashionable. They have come from men who stood still while the rest of the world rushed past them, and who held fast to certain moral truths as to a rock. Progress itself depends upon the retention of permanent things. A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton

@Anton__BTC @GhostofMapl Serious question. Doesn’t BIP 110 pretty much only change recent changes that were introduced in core 30 and fix taproot bug? If so logically that would mean they are fixing to the way it was for most of its life correct?

Go watch the full video of the BTC Prague talk from @DrJackKruse now. #BIP110 🧡

My thinking on BIP-110 has shifted quite a bit in the last weeks and months. Where I currently stand is complicated. Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the whole thing. I stand with BIP-110 in principle, in that I disagree strongly with the proliferation of arbitrary data on Bitcoin. At the same time, my reasoning has always been a little different from the motivations cited in the BIP itself. I view arbitrary data as an attack on Bitcoin's availability as a monetary network. I mean that in a technical sense, from the cybersecurity world, where availability refers to one of 3 primary ways that cyber attacks target systems and information, the others being data confidentiality and information integrity. Arbitrary data isn't the same thing as gold jewelry, which only takes a portion of the stock off the open market and distorts the price a little. Arbitrary data also competes for the throughput of scarce block space. It's shortsighted to think that fees generated by arbitrary data are a good thing. The situation might be somewhat positive for the miners, but again, only in the short term. The real effect on users, making it more expensive to transact and potentially pushing activities off the main chain, is only net negative in my view. Growing real adoption will solve the fee issues in the long run. We don't need arbitrary data protocols for that. This is all to say that my concern over spam isn't quite the same as cited in the BIP. I'm not as worried about contiguous data as the strongest proponents are. I'm more frustrated by the size and volume generally. It has also been truly concerning to me the way that Bitcoin Core tacitly allowed the propagation of arbitrary data even before the OP_RETURN change. Taproot shipping without covering Tapscript with datacarriersize and adhering to previously established limits made it much easier for inscriptions to get a foothold in the market when it did. Refusing to fix those bugs in Core feels strongly disingenuous to me. On a technical level, I believe the BIP has some flaws. I wouldn't have set the OP_RETURN limit at 83 bytes by consensus. If the goal of the BIP was to limit data vectors to 256 bytes, set that to 256 bytes also. I've been consistent on this point. I would also have preferred to see a method of closing the "OP_FALSE OP_IF" envelope without totally disabling OP_IF in Tapscript. Breaking Miniscript isn't a good thing. At the same time, I also assert that it must be possible to walk back certain parts of upgrades, at least temporarily. Otherwise, there's nothing we can do in the case of unforeseen consequences in future upgrades. Breaking user space isn't a good excuse here. Bitcoin is a distributed system, not individual computers. It's not a valid security model to say that no individual can ever be impacted by network-level changes. Therefore, I assert that the tradeoffs of BIP-110 are technically acceptable to me. Having a little bit less development freedom (again, temporarily) is perfectly fine if it serves greater network goals. As to whether BIP-110 will actually reduce spam, honestly I'm not convinced about that anymore. I see the willingness for arbitary data enthusiasts to move to other methods. Perhaps the cost can be increased for them, somewhat, but the claim at least is that the cost increase is negligible. Still, I come back to another cybersecurity principle, where actively exploited bugs are prioritized and fixed first. Closing off the vectors that are being actively used at least forces the spammers to do something in order to salvage their precious JPEGs and tokens. Then again, is any of this worth a potential chain split? I don't think so. There are 3 logical scenarios here: One is that BIP-110 fails entirely, and the status quo is maintained. At this point, I find that scenario acceptable. Move on, continue the fight another day. The other is that BIP-110 succeeds, activates, and becomes the rules of Bitcoin. I believe this is a good outcome, and will be good for the network in the long run. Others disagree, and say that Bitcoin's reputation will be permanently damaged by a change being forced through without consensus. The final scenario is a protracted chain split. I'm told that this is unlikely by BIP-110 proponents, and that it's extremely likely by opponents. I at least acknowledge that it's a possibility. And I unequivocally believe that this outcome would be bad for Bitcoin. All scenarios probably result in some individuals leaving the space, for better or worse. It would be a shame for monetary maximalists to give up on Bitcoin. I don't want that, considering I consider myself one. It would also be negative if a lot of dedicated developers left the space if 110 activates. And a split is a split. Not good either. This whole post is mostly all to say that I'm tired of fighting for the merits of this BIP when I don't really believe in it entirely. I like the idea of the BIP, and the idea of taking action against arbitrary data. But if the BIP isn't going to be truly effective, and all it's going to do is cause community controversy, then I don't think it's a net positive. I still support the idea of taking action against arbitrary data in the future. I also support increasing the share of node implementations other than Core. In my ideal scenario, no one implementation has the majority of the market share. Perhaps it's optimal to have only one primary implementation, but in the case where multiple implementations exist, not having any one be dominant is preferable to me. So, I'm withdrawing from the fight, for now at least. I'm continuing to work on Bitcoin education and adoption efforts. Whatever happens, all I care about is Bitcoin fixing the money and fixing the world. I hope that's still possible.

What is the easiest way to ferret out libertarians among our ranks, i.e. those who defend the tenets of economic liberalism? See if they refuse to uphold these two principles of Catholic economics: 1. The State and subordinate public-authorities are the “true and effective directing principle” of economic affairs, not free competition of corporations and individuals 2. The State has the right (and often duty) to positively intervene in the economy to remedy various evils

🎉 BIP-110 SIGNALING BLOCK! Block 953,745 signals for BIP-110 Miner: OCEAN (Roughnecks) BIP-110 status: thebitcoinportal.com/live/nodes/bip… mempool.guide/block/00000000…

We are Bitcoiners who still believe Bitcoin is money. Not a JPEG gallery. Not cheap cloud storage. Not a data layer for arbitrary spam. For too long, non-monetary data has bloated the UTXO set, raised verification costs, and threatened the decentralization that keeps Bitcoin sovereign. BIP-110 is our temporary, pragmatic line in the sand — a soft fork that limits abuse of blockspace and refocuses the chain on its original purpose: peer-to-peer electronic cash. We run Knots. We signal BIP-110. We filter what doesn’t belong. This is not about control. It’s about preserving a sound monetary network that anyone can run and verify — without permission, and without carrying everyone else’s junk. The network is waking up. More sovereign nodes choose this path every week. Filters up. 🛡️ #BIP110 #RunKnots #Bitcoin