#BIP-110 Monk

Running BIP-110. Making my own block templates. Make Bitcoin Great Again.

@spoonmvn @HodlMagoo The glass is half full!

@HodlMagoo Having a lead maintainer that is able & willing to adapt when food supply chains are disrupted is a key advantage we have over Core.

Current situation in Bitcoin: We have someone who visited Epstein’s island and took funding from him debating someone who eats cats and called the FBI on developers about what consensus is or isn’t.

Arguing with a corewhore be like

@CaminaDrummer4 I see you all the time.

GM people now that apparently followers see posts now— but I am throttled pretty hard, will anyone see this? I’m betting like two people.

@AnalysisFeral @adam3us Oh ya, what am I thinking now?

@BitcoinMonk21 @adam3us That's not how that works lol

On the filter fork topic. I don't usually have time, but this morning listened to one of the twitter spaces from earlier in the week, with some well meaning relative bitcoin newcomers, that humanized them, and their concerns and thoughts for why they thought that made it logical to support 110. My feeling after listening, is if these are the people with #110 in their handles, I'm sad to see them about to fork off and get disillusioned without understanding why bitcoin rejected 110 robustly. So here's a more empathetic, constructive higher level version of explaining why not. I hope it's high-level and first-principles enough that everyone can follow. They seem to want to understand what makes people tick, and are suspicious of intent. So, if someone asked me why is Bitcoin important and what is it, I'd say my (personal) mission and hope for bitcoin is to build the cypherpunk future, that "Snow Crash" was a blueprint, and work backwards from there. Bitcoin I hope leads to fully free markets via bearer unseizable, hard mathematically dependable money. Not everyone is comfortable with that level of freedom, but that's my view. And at this point, I believe that surprisingly, even now many governments have come to understand and value bitcoin's gold-like mathematical assurance, a positive development. Others may have milder views than myself, but still like hard censorship resistant money. Because of motive suspicion, if it's not obvious: I hate spam with a passion, that's how I came to design hashcash while researching decentralized bearer money with others, and running nodes in privacy related cypherpunk p2p networks nearly three decades ago. People seem upset about the default op return policy change in bitcoin. I will just assert, there are extremely robust and simple reasons for bitcoin changing default relay policy, and most just didn't do their research, so don't know what those are, or maybe not technical enough to fully understand though there have been 1000s of posts trying to explain in various simplified ways. So that lack of understanding lends itself to shared build-up of false narratives. So here's my back-to-basics higher level explanation. The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications a: side effect of decentralization is that you can't impose your views on others. The very decentralization mechanism that helps that, is working against what BIP 110 wants, which at it's most basic is a quest to police other people. I understand supporters don't see their intent like that, but introspect deeper. You can modify your software, but not anyone else's. Another critical and incredibly robust technical bitcoin immune system is bitcoin can't have people who don't understand technology basics insist on eroding security, decentralization robustness and core properties. That would end badly, fast, and so people will fight you on that. So the message is Bitcoin respectfully says "no" to what you want. Sorry, and bitcoiners do genuinely understand and empathize that you mean well, have high level thoughts that make emotional sense, and articulate sensible bitcoin-defensive high level ideas, but they are not grounded and without you seeing it, the way you propose to achieve your ideas, hard-conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money. My advice is to listen to more experienced people who understand the system and why it works the way it does, to whatever detail you want to understand the grounded reasons for why this is the implication of decentralization and cypherpunk money. I guarantee you the developer and protocol ecosystem shares and exceeds your views on bearer hard money (and dislike of spam). You may not agree with individual developers choices, views, way of expressing themselves etc, BUT you also need to understand the IETF-like decentralized technical consensus process creates a protective change resistance, that is highly effective at protecting bitcoin mission. The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus. And the many highly technical mainline developers' cypherpunk mission mindsets are probably far more determined than you can even handle on clarity of understanding and views about freedoms on permissionless networks, as many of you are probably still subconsciously inured by the matrix, where they have transcended that, and grew up immersed in it decades ago. They think natively in this space, while you are just grappling with the surface. Many wont have internalized or have the experience to know how this internet physics works, where there is no policeman, no policy authority, just mathematics, free market and hard money. That has implications for your views also, unfortunately. Now the tough pill, which is unfortunately true: If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But bitcoin won't be joining it. (With respect and no sleight intended.) Please rejoin bitcoin now, or later if you're not convinced and need to experience 110 forking off and fizzling for yourself to start that journey of introspecting and learning. It would be sad if bitcoin lost people disillusioned due to simple lack of understanding of what's going on there, we're all trying to defend bitcoin and keep it on mission. Including btw the 110 technical promoters, just they wandered off plot somehow. Join the cypherpunks on bitcoin, come cypherpunk summer🌞 in a few weeks.

@Roughnecks110 know how to start the day off right! mempool.guide/block/00000000…

@DudeJLebowski Nice.

Fun fact. We don't get many Bitcoin folk here on Koh Samui. Tone Vays was doing a talk at a group I sometimes go to, 15 minutes away. I told the organiser I won't be attending because he's a fucking idiot.

Don't let childless losers with no skin in the game dictate the future of Bitcoin and humanity! We were blinded by NGU and lost focus. We let the Trojan horse into our shining City. Now is the time to reclaim what is ours. It was never Mikey's or Andy's and they need to understand it, loud and clear. KICK THEM OUT! RUN BIP-110!

@Arthur_van_Pelt I can’t wait to read it.

@BitcoinMonk21 This is indeed a big point I'm also making in my next article which I consider my BIP110 magnum opus destroying a large amount of Vortex and Back narratives. They just don't understand that tech consensus follows social consensus.

This is a great read so far and I’ll be finishing it later. If I understand his point it’s what I have been saying - the technical consensus is subservient to the social consensus. If there are oddities in the code making bitcoin behave in ways that are not valid under the social consensus then they need to be corrected to match.

It is technically available to all but in practice most people don’t know how or have any reason to make transactions like that. In practice it favors data storage over monetary use. This inverts the incentives to make bitcoin a free cloud service instead of a monetary network. Then “allowing code to be built” is all it takes to qualify. Really? Why not remove the dust limit. What happens if we make a mistake. How bad does it have to get before we can say that the free market isnt going to correct this. Who decides?

@BitcoinMonk21 @14g23h34 No it doesn't. Segwit brought everyone the witness discount. Taproot was to allow code to be built. Anyone can do that. Anyone. Not rules for some but not for others

The only difference between: 1) 110 supporters 2) those that agree with the reason but not the method is time and tolerance. The same behavior that 110 is in reaction to will continue, and group 2 will run out of tolerance. This is the nature of all politics.

20) That's why I'm running BIP-110

@graveskies @14g23h34 Then how do you justify segwit as a free market change. It targets specific actors in favor of others. Same goes for taproot.

I'm glad you asked instead of imposing the opposite for the sake of opposition. Block size it a freemarket rule because of a couple reasons. The block size has to exist. There are external factors that limit us and our capabilities. Moore's law is one of these things. We have to have a limit to ensure that the blockchain doesn't grow faster than the acceleration of the tech capabilities. If this were to occur then bitcoin would be stopped at a predicted end date where no more blocks could ever be mined. It a one rule that governs all because that's the limit. It affects everyone the same and we all have to deal with it. Another reason related to that is that it isn't targeting anything specific. Bitcoin is already well within the boundaries to grow forever at 4mb per 10min. Bip110 imposes rules with a bias. It targets specific actors for ideological reasons only. While i agree with the motivations of that ideology I disagree with the actions. You say that it protects the network but that is a subjective statement based on that ideology. Spam isn't creating a limit breach so the only thing being protected is Bip110ers egos. The supply limit is like the block size. The limit for a supply cap to create the best money and best SoV is a finite amount. The total isn't important as long as it's the same from beginning onward. So we are limited by factors beyond our control.

@btcefe @coinjoined So sad

Today is a very sad day for me. One of my life's pleasures has come to an end. Bye bye 'stfu chris', you will be missed big dawg 🕯️ Let's take one last look at the 'stfu chris's and remember the beautiful memories 🥲 @coinjoined 💔

Where do these headlines come from? Can we get a community note? @CommunityNotes BIP110 support is at an all-time high, measured in every single metric. This is blatant propaganda.

The inscription crowd has run the same play since day one: you can't define spam, the definition is arbitrary, you don't get to decide, there's no way to draw a line. There is. A spam transaction is a transaction with no monetary settlement function whose costs are pushed onto every node permanently with no way to recover them. That is not a preference or an aesthetic judgment. It is a description of what the transaction actually does. Every node that has run since the inscription exploit was discovered has downloaded, stored, and validated that data, and every node that runs from here on will do the same. The people demanding a definition pretend the category doesn't exist while running businesses that depend on using Bitcoin's block space as cheap data storage. They hold spam to a standard they apply nowhere else in engineering because the goal is not clarity. The goal is to make the conversation impossible. The definition exists. It always did. The only people still looking for it are the ones being paid not to find it.

The best database for images isn't a database at all. It's called a "filesystem"

@JuergenStrobel @authintegx Core was going to remove it. If it doesn't do anything why do you care so much.

@BitcoinMonk21 @authintegx Core doesn't dictate config to their own users either, they provide a default, a recommendation, which can be changed by a simple line: datacarriersize=83 Only BIP 110 supporters are bent on centrally controlling this, and as they admit for no benefit but hurt feelings.

@BitcoinMonk21 @authintegx The response would have happened any way. Easy to find another pretext. You already admitted the response has no technical merit, but was based on emotions. Knots users were hurt that Core put their own users first, and not their spam/CSAM crusade.

@JuergenStrobel @authintegx >They simply cannot be allowed to dictate how other users configure their nodes. Then this statement is irrelevant.

@BitcoinMonk21 @authintegx If Core really did dictate how everyone configures their nodes, - sub-sat summer would not have happened - large op_returns would not have been mined *before* Core v30 - Knots and other alternate clients could not exist => Core does not dictate config to users. Q.E.D.

@JuergenStrobel @authintegx That is incredibly naive. The reference implementation affects the entire network. You don't see how core changing defaults effectively dictates how the rest of the network configures their nodes?

@BitcoinMonk21 @authintegx Look, it's a policy default. It only affects Core users, who can decide whether to accept the default or change it. Knots had a different default any way, no technical reason for them to object. They simply cannot be allowed to dictate how other users configure their nodes.