Luke Dashjr

I am a community-paid #Bitcoin developer working on Bitcoin Core & many other parts of Bitcoin. You can help fund my public Bitcoin work by: 1) Sending me bitcoins - contact me for a Bitcoin address! 2) GitHub Sponsors: github.com/sponsors/luke-… 3) Patreon: patreon.com/LukeDashjr?utm…

The fundamental problem core-tards have with BIP110 is that it works.

@Excellion @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound I don't think so. If you're going to try to force CSAM on me, that's the end.

@LukeDashjr @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound We can still be friends after this is all over.

Just something to chew on.

@Excellion @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound Liar

@LukeDashjr @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound I know nothing. I just want to run my node and be left alone.

The most unscrupulous people in Bitcoin have been telling you for the last year that your node is irrelevant.

@AsyncN8 No reason to be so fatalistic. Don't let the trolls gaslight you.

If it loses. I fought. I fought to keep Bitcoin focused as freedom money. I fought for pleb node runners to be the bosses, for miners to be the employees. I fought against fiat minded people who think it’s a database for experiments, dirivatives & extractive grifters.#BIP110

@ts_hodl You don't know what you're talking about. Every claim here you make is wrong

BIP 110 statements I’ve seen that are misleading or incomplete, and can lead to a misunderstanding of fork mechanics: 1) “100% of nodes support BIP 110.” This is circular and assumes the outcome they are trying to prove. 2) “BIP 110 blocks are valid across both chains.” Sure, but that only matters if their hash points to the previous block on the chain with the most cumulative PoW. 3) “Miners have no incentive to signal early and every incentive to signal once it’s mandatory.” But what about the disincentive to avoid wasting work and burning money on mining on a potentially dead chain?

@mcchiperson77 @MarcosCand19501 @michelleweekley @asanoha_gold It already has more than enough support. And no, it doesn't become insecure under any conditions. Only old nodes do.

@LukeDashjr @MarcosCand19501 @michelleweekley @asanoha_gold And if bip 110 does not gain enough support, after some time, that chain would become insecure as well? So whichever chain the community decides on, the other one becomes insecure?

I don’t agree with a lot of things I’ve seen @LukeDashjr say, but when it comes to Bitcoin, I trust him more than most anyone else in the space. It’s not just his exemplary track record of Bitcon development, it’s something in my gut. I don’t know exactly what it is, but for some reason I genuinely trust the guy. Same for @GrassFedBitcoin. Maybe it’s something about the Tenth Man, maybe it’s something about the Remnant. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but in my life I’ve generally been a good gauge of people and their character.

@Beiwatch BIP110 is the consensus Bitcoin has worked under for 17 years. If you don't update, you're the one making changes, harmful changes that WILL wreck your node.

If, like me, you can not yet articulate the 7 or so technical changes brought about by BIP-110, stop, and do nothing. Its "Dont Trust, Verify"...not "kind of verify and trust" Don't pass go, don't wreck your node, don't transact, don't chase forked coins. Go verify. And take your sweet ass time doing it

@Excellion @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound Don't play stupid. You know.

@LukeDashjr @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound I’m running v29. How did I force anyone to do anything?

@Excellion @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound Why do you want to force everyone to distribute obscene images?

@LukeDashjr @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound I don’t support it.

@Excellion @JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound BIP110 is consensus.

@JustaLillyBit @CedYoungelman @SatoshiSound @LukeDashjr Luke is valuable as someone that thinks outside of the box. However, consensus is consensus.

@MarkPommrehn @ozsats256 @asanoha_gold @IvanSN77 ozsats256 is lying. It was almost all in cold wallets. None of it was on a server.

@ozsats256 @asanoha_gold @IvanSN77 @LukeDashjr Hot storage was probably not the best choice, but if you read his description, it sounds like targeted hacking. Have you ever deferred improving security? How many would be resilient enough to lose that and keep going on a startup, a high-quality alternative node, and BIP work?

@mcchiperson77 @MarcosCand19501 @michelleweekley @asanoha_gold The same thing if they run a light wallet: not secure

@MarcosCand19501 @michelleweekley @asanoha_gold @LukeDashjr So if bip 110 succeeds, what happens to everyone running core?

@AquaBitcoin @MBronens Fake news. Way to screw over your users.

AQUA uses Blockstream's Esplora backend and in the event of a chain split we will continue to accept blocks that BIP110 would consider invalid. A BIP110 minority chain would not be viable longterm as block times would be every ~33 hours and the difficulty adjustment in 7.6 years. If you want to claim your BIP110 coins, you would have to use the AQUA seed in some other tool that may or may not exist. We cannot make any assurances about the safety of such a tool, and whether your seed will continue to be safe.

Have you noticed that in AQUA, the numbers in addresses appear in blue? 👀 It's not just aesthetics. Long addresses are hard to verify. Color helps your eyes spot patterns faster, so you can confirm an address at a glance and avoid errors. Small detail. Intentional design. 🌊🐬

Apparently, transaction validation rules are not censorship, unless the rule applies to OP_RETURN. Then, suddenly, Bitcoin Core has discovered civil liberties. Transaction must be correctly encoded: not censorship Inputs must exist: not censorship Inputs must be unspent: not censorship Signatures must be valid: not censorship Scripts must execute successfully: not censorship Timelocks must be satisfied: not censorship Input value must cover output value: not censorship Output values must remain within the monetary range: not censorship Transaction weight must remain within consensus limits: not censorship Transaction must comply with every other consensus rule: not censorship OP_RETURN data must remain within a consensus limit: CENSORSHIP Why can’t I spend your coins with an invalid signature? Who is censoring me? You can argue that an OP_RETURN limit is unnecessary, ineffective, or bad policy. But pretending it is uniquely “censorship” while every other validity rule is merely “validation” is transparently rhetorical.

@EllenRicardo @cguida6 @NealFlesher @bramk You don't know what you're talking about

@cguida6 @NealFlesher @bramk @LukeDashjr Where was the URSF that jettisoned Amaury’s ecash soft fork off of BCH? Seems to me that minority forks are fully able to fork themselves off without help.

For every BIP110 supporter: who wrote the below? Do you agree Bitcoin IS NOT about consensus? This is stuff that keeps me away tbh. There is consensus, or not. If you support your idea, but the network does not, you lose (fine) or fork off (also fine). Help me understand.xo

@EllenRicardo @NealFlesher @cguida6 @bramk Then those miners are making invalid blocks. BIP 110 is a softfork, it doesn't split

@NealFlesher @cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr What about miners just ignoring the signaling bit entirely? If they have more hash, BIP110 will just split apart on its own minority chain. Same as Amaury’s ecash did with BCH. No “URSF” needed there.

@EllenRicardo @ts_hodl @AdamSimecka The consensus rules for the current chain include BIP 110. No alternative rules have been proposed. If you merely neglect to enforce some rules, you're still on the blockchain that does enforce them - just not a full node and insecure

@LukeDashjr @ts_hodl @AdamSimecka > No, it's just invalid blocks Can you give an objective definition for valid here? I’d argue it’s whatever meets Bitcoin’s consensus rules, so it’s dependent on the definition of the “consensus rules”. You say those include BIP110, but many think those aren’t part of Bitcoin.

@grok @CoinNCurious @_Adrian @MCBirminghamBTC @adam3us @saylor And it's a lie

The v30 release notes state exactly this: “-datacarriersize is increased to 100,000 by default… It can be overridden with -datacarriersize=83 to revert to the limit enforced in previous versions.” Multiple OP_RETURN outputs are also now permitted by default, with the limit applied in aggregate. The config option remains fully available. Node operators control their own relay policy. Official source: bitcoincore.org/en/releases/30…

One of the ways I think of Bitcoin | BIP-110 boils down to this: We get spam in our email inboxes every day. I think most would like to avoid it. But we make the decision on how to mark | filter that spam into trash. This isn't done by a unilateral rule change that decides what to filter, without our input. One path represents individual choice; the other represents implementing censorship via code. As @adam3us noted, the Internet (and Bitcoin) are supposed to be ungovernable systems. We can’t (effectively) stop spam via intrusive protocol changes, but that’s why mechanisms like fees exist.

@lvboudre @dmweisberger @1914ad OCEAN fixes that

@LukeDashjr @dmweisberger @1914ad Personnally, I feel bitcoin kinda already failed at decentralization, mining pool are so concentrated that they can censor transaction if they want. No BIP have been proposed to improve on that front.

I am sure many of you disagree (@1914ad), but, from the perspective of Bitcoin as a scarce asset, I think the existential risk is not Spam, but rather credibility in the face of future threats...