Conza

A lesson I learned long ago: "Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings so that you shall come easily by what others have labored hard for." — Socrates📖

@ToiletTweeting_ @Anton__BTC Doesn't break down.

@Conza @Anton__BTC This is where the analogy kinda breaks down but yes, spam appears to be increasing

Saying that block size mitigates spam is as dumb as saying that cup size mitigates alcoholism.

LIVE VIEW: The free market's high fees taking care of Bitcoin spam

The path of the righteous money is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of fvcking retards.

it's all coming together

This is why BIP110 is bad? Because it stops Adam forking Simplicity into bitcoin to turn it into Ethereum with the help of his Eth dev employees now working at Blockstream? Ask yourself if you're a useful idiot, anon .

@ajtowns Have you responded to @hodlonaut's questions yet?

Wow, hashrate might not be hitting new highs but the delusional rhetoric sure is.

@michelleo_21mil ..

@BTCBreadMan Twin.

I am neither Pro-BIP 110 nor anti-BIP 110. The Node War is fake and gay FUD, and I am opting out entirely. GFY

@BTCBreadMan So what node do you run? Version?

@L0RINC @giacomozucco @adam3us @ocean_mining Then we read the receipts and verify it all. Unless you're suggesting there's private discussions happening and major decisions behind closed doors?

@giacomozucco @adam3us @ocean_mining I get the same feeling when people talk about Core...

Today we are announcing that OCEAN’s backend will be upgraded to follow multiple chains independently in the event of a BIP 110 chain split. If a split occurs, DATUM miners automatically continue on whichever chain their own node enforces, and OCEAN will credit rewards to a split share log for that chain, subject to the chain’s continued operation and to our Terms of Service. OCEAN will effectively operate as two pools from the split point. Updated Terms of Service addressing split handling will be published before block 961632. We are building all this so our miners can receive rewards based on their own actions without adversely affecting other OCEAN miners.

@ToiletTweeting_ @Anton__BTC You just get more potency i.e. stronger liquor. And blocks full of more spam... which is exactly what has been seen.

@Anton__BTC Cup size could mitigate alcoholism if you only had one cup every ten minutes

The Capture by @hodlonaut in 1 image. Readme file Jan 6, 2009: "Bitcoin is an electronic cash system". Readme file 2022: "Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency". May 22, 2022 Core maintainer @laanwj argues "What is Bitcoin is very much up for discussion, delete it." 1/3

Japan is the poster child for plant-based longevity. Frisk it, and an animal falls out of every pocket. Breakfast is tamago kake gohan: a raw egg cracked over hot rice and stirred till the bowl turns gold. Japan eats more eggs a head than almost anyone alive, around 320 a year, second only to Mexico. Nearly one a day, raw, on the rice you were told was the healthy part. The famous stuff is worse. Sushi is raw fish. Ramen is a bowl of pork-bone broth wearing noodles. A single tuna at the New Year auction has sold for over a million pounds. Not the behaviour of a people who treat meat as a garnish. Even the vegetables are in on it. The greens, the miso, the broth under everything are built on dashi, a stock of dried tuna and sardines. The plants were swimming in fish before they hit the plate. And the elderly filling those longevity charts grew up on whale, ladled into post-war school lunches at a third the price of pork until about 1980. The scoreboard: - Eggs: around 320 a head a year, second in the world - Fish: the national dish is raw, the stock is in everything - Vegetables: mostly simmered in tuna and sardine broth - Meat: overtook fish outright in 2011 and has stayed ahead - Protein: the total has barely moved in decades, it just walked from one animal to another Japan eats plants. It also opens the day with a raw egg, wraps its rice round raw fish, cooks the greens in tuna, and built its oldest generation on whale. Call that plant-based if you like. The wellness industry does, then crops the whale out of the photo.

@ErinEMalone Might need to update your bio to remove: "Pleb". What are you building exactly? Did you just start paying attention? When did you "research"?

I wasn’t going to waste the energy on this ridiculous debate, but enough people have asked… I’ll say it as diplomatically as I can: I run Bitcoin Core because I’m not an idiot. Now back to building.

2025: This is a consensus issue, you can't use filters. 2026: This is a filter issue, you can't use consensus. Your BS isn't working corewhores #BIP110Summer

There are two specific vulnerabilities in Bitcoin Core that could have been fixed and avoided any talk of a fork. These are: CVE-2023-50428: Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE OP_IF CVE-2024-34149: Policy script size limits not enforced for Tapscript CVE stands for Common Vulnerability and Exposure, which provides a database of security vulnerabilities. The issues allowing spam to propagate freely on Bitcoin were acknowledged as vulnerabilities and made it into the CVE database. From a cybersecurity perspective, fixing vulnerabilities is a no brainer, even if the effect of the fix isn't perfect. Basic code changes would have at least made it so that the latest versions of Core and onward would not have that specific bug. The issues were fixed in Knots 25.1. Varying rationale has been given for not implementing the proposed fixes, but to me, all that has happened is that two bugs weren't fixed. I don't care that spammers would have an alternate method of getting their transactions relayed. The official policy of the reference implementation would be that relaying those transactions is non-standard. Policy defaults matter. Standards matter. Friction matters. This whole problem could have been solved ages ago by Core practicing basic vulnerability management.

That was the premise of the (rhetoricalish) question. And what I've indicated. That "activation" in this (your) sense meant MASF (miner acceptance over 55% threshold, so no one bad actor big miner can veto) and thus "community activation/acceptance no chain split". Where instead, you go on the trope that "activation" is rejected by miners, and UASF happens regardless, and then "what are you going to do after one year?" applies. In any case, tell me more about when you'd accept the soft fork "maybe".

@Conza @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut what did you mean by this: "Just rolling with MASF activation, not UASF."

It's so disappointing seeing so many Aussie bitcoiners on the BIP110 suicide train. Reminds me of the Craig Wright is Satoshi days. Surrounded by idiots! @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @Conza

If the industry ignores the community on BIP110 (no reason to think they will at present) then you have your head in the sand if you don't think they'll make a play for breaking 21m next. "Pleb slop" nodes are literally the only thing enforcing halvings.

@SeismicSats @1914ad Not who, but what: "reason". Is 1+1=2 subjective? Its a priori. Same as economics. Which we know to determine what monetary properties are, how they impact things when changed, and thus determine when quality is being reduced.

@1914ad Isn't "bad actor" subjective? Who gets to decide who qualifies?

✅ 2025: doing this at the consensus layer is the only path forward ❗️2026: doing this at the consensus layer is an attack on Bitcoin The moment BIP-110 was released, we set the precedent that we no longer seek nor require consensus with bad actors.

4/ During Bitcoin's first big soft fork in 2012, Luke proposed BIP 17, a standard for multi-sig wallets. The proposal was contested by Bitcoin's "lead developer," who asked him to leave the project. Luke refused. Today, BIP 17 is widely seen as a superior solution 👏