₿ugsy

24.3K posts

₿ugsy banner
₿ugsy

₿ugsy

@BitcoinBugsy

🥕 #Bitcoin

Katılım Kasım 2011
2.2K Takip Edilen3.4K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
Why is everyone pushing this narrative that #bitcoin is congested or broken? #Bitcoin is working as intended. It has a priority fee structure. If you want your transaction to go through faster, bump your fee. Facts matter, it’s better to educate accurately than mislead people…
English
63
1.3K
418
73.2K
Adam Simecka
Adam Simecka@AdamSimecka·
Did they support Segwit? ✅️ Did they support Taproot? ✅️ But now, they say they don't support BIP110 because it is a change to consensus, even though they were fine with the last 2 consensus changes. Why? The answer is simple. It removes power from Core and hamstrings the spam projects they invested millions of dollars into. This is why they hate it.
English
29
89
388
6.1K
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Feels like you haven't been listening or understanding the debate, or maybe you're captured too. This isn't difficult: BIP-110 stops official arbitrary data storage. Anything else is a lie. Bitcoin, only has ONE place for official arbitrary data storage in transactions, called OP_RETURN. Restrict that, and you restrict the official ability to store porn on bitcoin. Ramming it in somewhere else with steganographic attacks or via code exploits, are NOT supported uses of bitcoin and are therefore subject to fixes later. We stop OFFICIAL exploits now, and then work on the rest, iteratively. Which part of this is not clear? I welcome the discussion. Seriously. I'm a BIP-110 supporter. I'm reaching outside of my echo chamber. Prove me wrong.
Lyn Alden@LynAldenContact

@Bongo_King1 I sympathize with those who are concerned about spam on bitcoin, but I’d invite you to look around and see that you’re in an echo chamber that makes a minority fork (which doesn’t solve the issue) feel like the majority.

English
40
23
193
45.9K
Wicked
Wicked@w_s_bitcoin·
“Please brooo…just support my fork brooo…I’ll shill your company if you do bro…come on, we’re totally gonna win…which is why I’m begging you to support it…bro…pleaseeeee!” 😭
Wicked tweet media
English
106
48
665
33.2K
pawellwitt
pawellwitt@pawellwitt·
🟧🐶 Bitcoin $DOG Mode is coming‼️@LeonidasNFT has recently proposed a new Mode that operates entirely within Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules and does not require a fork 🚨 ⬇️ Here are main features ⬇️ 🔸 Maximum inscription size increased from 400 kb to 3.9MB ⚠️ This would allow anyone to inscribe large files, even ~4 Meggers, without having to work directly with miners and paying them extra fee, leaving 100kB for other types of transactions 🔸 Minimum dust limit lowered from 294-546 sats (depending on output type) to 1 Sat! ⚠️ This means that inscriptions wouldn’t have to carry extra 300-500 Sats of unnecessary padding ❗️It would also free up ~$25M in Sats that are currently stuck as inscription padding 👀 For more info check out quoted post below 👇 🟧 I will run Bitcoin in $DOG Mode 🤝
pawellwitt tweet media
Leonidas 🧡 $DOG@LeonidasNFT

I am very excited to announce the launch of a new open source Bitcoin client called Bitcoin $DOG Mode. Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots have spent years enforcing rules that Bitcoin itself does not have. A transaction can be fully valid under consensus and still be blocked from normal relay because it is “non-standard”. This has resulted in the creation of a private “black market” for Bitcoin transactions where insiders with connections to miners get do things that ordinary Bitcoin users cannot. The $DOG Army has already gotten around this system twice. First we went directly to miners to execute the largest transaction in Bitcoin’s history because Bitcoin Core would not relay it. Then we did it again for the largest airdrop in Bitcoin’s history because of Core’s arbitrary 83-byte OP_RETURN limit. Around the same time, the Runes Protocol had grown so popular that memecoin activity accounted for the majority of transactions on the Bitcoin network. Many of these transactions also went directly to miners to bypass Core’s minimum relay fee. Core realized it had been outmaneuvered and in response they released Core v30 which removed the OP_RETURN limit and lowered the default minimum relay fee to 0.1 sat/vB. This revealed a clear pattern. The $DOG Army could route our “non-standard” transactions around Core, miners would accept them, and then Core was eventually forced to give in. The $DOG Army is done asking for permission. It is time to remove even more of these frivolous restrictions. That is why we are starting an open source initiative to develop our own Bitcoin client called $DOG Mode. When using Bitcoin in $DOG Mode: 1. The maximum standard transaction size will be increased from 400,000 WU to 3,900,000 WU. This will give everyone equal access to do “four meggers” while leaving a generous 100,000 WU of space for the coinbase transaction and block overhead. 2. The global dust limit will be lowered from 294-546 sats (depending on output type) to 1 sat. Ordinals inscriptions and Runes UTXOs are currently forced to carry hundreds of unnecessary sats to appease Bitcoin Core. This will remove the need for “padding” and effectively airdrop ~$25M in locked up sats back to the Ordinals and Runes ecosystem. Unlike Bitcoin Knots, which deviates significantly from Bitcoin Core and introduces substantial risk to node runners, Bitcoin $DOG Mode aims to only change the absolute minimum code necessary to remove these two restrictions. And unlike BIP-110, which attempts to change Bitcoin consensus through a network fork, $DOG Mode operates entirely within Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules and does not require a fork. This ensures that $DOG Mode can be successful from day one. Over time the economic incentives will drive $DOG Mode’s adoption and force Bitcoin Core to stop gatekeeping and allow these completely valid transactions. The result will be a more open, fair, and transparent Bitcoin network. If you are a Bitcoin developer who is interested in contributing to the initial $DOG Mode release, please reach out to me. If you are a Bitcoin miner who is interested in increasing your revenue by adding support for $DOG Mode transactions, please reach out to me. If you are a normal Bitcoin user who wants to support $DOG Mode quote post this with: “I will run Bitcoin in $DOG Mode”

English
10
33
104
2.6K
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@ScarcityMan @bardofpresence @chcbearsfan @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact We can agree that if it’s successful, it limits OP_RETURN outputs to 83 bytes. But I think we both know that isn’t happening AND the witness is where most push data anyway because it’s 4x cheaper. Or you can use more harmful things like fake pub keys… Goodluck with your fork!
English
0
0
1
32
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
That is incorrect. It does limit it via its one and only official bucket for it, known as OP_RETURN (to mention one place). This is not an argument or a debate. Read the code: bitcoinknots.org/learn/bip110-c…. if (txout.scriptPubKey.size() > ((txout.scriptPubKey[0] == OP_RETURN) ? MAX_OUTPUT_DATA_SIZE : MAX_OUTPUT_SCRIPT_SIZE)) { + return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_PREMATURE_SPEND, "bad-txns-vout-script-toolarge"); } "Doesn't limit" and similar statements are propaganda.
English
1
0
0
31
DuBiBo
DuBiBo@Du_Bi_Bo·
@WalkerAmerica @ghostofstacks You have a strange way of showing support. I'm fully with you guys, hope everything turns out as best as possible for Carla and the baby. But you might want to take a step back from bitcoin now, focus on home... In spirit with you there. We're all family under sound money.
English
3
0
1
168
Walker⚡️
Walker⚡️@WalkerAmerica·
PSA to BIP110 folks: here is a thread of Luke Dashjr telling plebs that nodes don’t matter unless they have economic influence… “A node is only as relevant as its operator's economic influence.”
Walker⚡️ tweet media
English
69
67
411
45.4K
Nobody
Nobody@bardofpresence·
@BitcoinBugsy @chcbearsfan @ScarcityMan @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact Yeah that's my understanding. It's hard to argue unless there's convincing evidence a change like this would materially disincentivize spam. That being said, evidence is not always needed. I personally agree with de-standardization. But it needs to be thorough and thoughtful.
English
1
0
2
50
Nobody
Nobody@bardofpresence·
@chcbearsfan @ScarcityMan @BitcoinBugsy @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact yes and no. BIP 110 doesn't solve spam but it doesn't claim to do so either. It aims to "de-standardize" spam as a use case. Spammers would have to adapt and use nonstandard ways of embedding. The question is whether this will actually limit spammer behavior.
English
2
0
1
87
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@ScarcityMan @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact And no I don’t support that garbage. I just understand as many sane people on here do that you can’t stop spam or “official spam”. 110 is not a viable solution.
English
0
0
0
25
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@ScarcityMan @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact Yep segwit and taproot were agreed upon consensus changes, 110 is not. It’s a good thing Bitcoin can’t be captured by a small minority of loud mouths on X. And it’s a great way of phrasing it. I don’t need holy untainted corn. If that’s truly a concern, don’t run a node I guess
English
1
0
2
53
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@ScarcityMan @Arrghtv @LynAldenContact I feel sorry for you falling for fear tactics and other fud. Sorry but Bitcoin isn’t changing because of some unfounded morality quest.
English
1
0
17
281
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
I feel sorry for you if you think the issue is non-existent. You'll probably be blindsided by it one day if you're actually in this space and hold any significant portion of your net worth in bitcoin. You best believe I'd rather spend my days any other way than arguing this stuff on X, but I don't do it because I want to, I do it because it is necessary.
English
2
0
12
1.7K
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@sjen_anoubis @LazerErik They’re not forking. It will stall and die fast. They lose nothing. And even if they hypothetically fork, they will have coins on both sides.
English
0
0
2
29
Sjen_Anoubis 🌎🍕
Sjen_Anoubis 🌎🍕@sjen_anoubis·
@BitcoinBugsy @LazerErik yeah, I was thinking, how can we help BIP-110 if they split off ... I guess a lot just run a node ... they don't use it to confirm there transaction, so its not realy a problem for them.
English
2
0
2
43
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@LazerErik @sjen_anoubis I mean there’s nothing at stake for them except re-syncing. They’re just going to use and have the same bitcoin as before
English
1
0
1
37
J25
J25@J25dunn·
@BitcoinBugsy @pawellwitt @LeonidasNFT Agreed, just like Knotz is 99% core Leo isn't going to do it, lul How about Greg that forked Ord to make it 10x more usable than Casey's slop I already know a utxo detective that has offered their services
English
1
0
1
29
₿ugsy
₿ugsy@BitcoinBugsy·
@sjen_anoubis @LazerErik Best practice is just don’t touch anything lol. Not worth transacting and potentially getting reply attacked
English
1
0
2
36