@ClioBitcoinBank @btctmac 1-10% is the MASF period. After MASF we start throwing in the garbage blocks that don't flip the version 4 bite.
And a month later, we start throwing in the garbage all blocks that don't fit the new rules.
English
Pepe Lapiu | BIP-110
492 posts
Pepe Lapiu | BIP-110
@LapiuPepe
When I wore a younger man's cloths, I had a bad case of stinky athletes foot. With my French accent, the gf gave me the nickname. It stuck.
Katılım Kasım 2025
70 Takip Edilen59 Takipçiler
@LapiuPepe @btctmac They lied to you Mr Le Pue. With only 1-10% signalling the chain splits between the two and you can spend the coins on each separately. Otherwise I could run a UASF and just not tell anyone and they would be forced to opt in by not signalling against me. Good luck.
English
@ClioBitcoinBank @btctmac Yeah right! Coretards keep occilatong between "BIP110 will destroy bitcoin" and "BIP110 is DOA".
It's so likely to fail that you have to spend your days telling us it will fail as your only argument.
English
@ClioBitcoinBank @btctmac Not at all. Even minority soft forks win. Unless a URSF is activated. Which would have been your best chance at killing BIP110. But the community has no appetite to run a spam node.
English
@LapiuPepe @btctmac That's not how it works, you signal in the affirmative or do nothing to reject it. Staying on core IS the rejection.
English
@lukedewolf You forget that in 2022 they removed the definition of Bitcoin as money from their documentation. So when you consider Bitcoin suddenly has no definition, they can claim the bugs are not really bugs. And they would be technically correct, based on their own documentation.
English
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.
Luke de Wolf | BIP-110@lukedewolf
Fine. They still fixed the problem in the latest versions. And old versions will continue to get more and more out of date in terms of security. People can do what they want. I still want an actual exploited bug fixed in the latest software version. And, also, maybe not making half-baked upgrades. Had these settings been in place from the time Taproot was implemented, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is both a software development lifecyle issue and a vulnerability management issue. The vulnerability management side was easy to fix. Easy. And I guarantee you, this furore would not have happened. Spam might have continued to get relayed, but it would have been harder for them. And Core wouldn't be stuffing their head in the sand at best and officially supporting it at worst.
English
@adam3us @hipolitoarme @LN_Master_Hub @theonevortex His "harm reduction" approach, once you remove the verbiage and excuses around it, looks and acts in the same way as the "pro spam" approach. That's why they locked the PR from comments 11 seconds after it was created. They knew their excuses were stoopit.
English
English
here's a test for change ideas for bitcoin to *prevent* something: if you made the analogous change to TCP/IP to achieve what you're asking for on bitcoin, would it work?
try it out: could you stop spam by modifying TCP/IP?
that's a useful test as bitcoin is also ungovernable.
English
You can clearly see that from a year ago, as core nodes started to drop, Knots nodes climbed up. And they want to believe we are not only running Sybil nodes, but we have the telekinetic power to turn off core nodes at the same time.
English
Pepe Lapiu | BIP-110 retweetledi
Many people have already posted it, but this dude has a great video on BIP-110, and Bitcoin in general. Not too technical. He deserves a sub! youtube.com/watch?v=HSxEJu…
YouTube
English
@benvhodl @EnjoyingBitcoin We are in the voluntary MASF period. Just wait until mandatory signalling on August 8th when we start throwing junk blocks in the garbage.
English
@EnjoyingBitcoin Yes from 0% to 1% in 20+ weeks with 4 more weeks to go. Better look at the absolute numbers.
English
Pepe Lapiu | BIP-110 retweetledi
@mattkratter @giacomozucco Same with questions about visiting the Epstein island. He refuses to answer any questions about it.
English
@giacomozucco Andy Back refused to meet with the BSTR PIPE investors to dispel these allegations-- and thus ended up collapsing the BSTR deal. Why do you think Andy refused to rebut allegations that should be really easy to rebut? My bet is that it's because the allegations are true
English
The wheels are falling off the BIP110 clown car. Ocean mining pool and Luke Dashjr (CTO and Chairman of Ocean) are making contradictory statements.
Ocean the pool is going to support chain splits, but according to Luke, "BIP110 does not cause a chain split".
lifofifo ◉@lifofifo
@ocean_mining Your CTO @LukeDashjr has said 100 times that BIP 110 cannot cause a chain split. "FUD from the anti-RDTS crowd" WTF IS IT? WHAT CHANGED?
English
@TheBTCViking I should say, you basically have to burn $150,000 of electricity to earn that 100 B of inscription. And if you leave it empty, it gets replaced by random data. So this takes no room at all on the chain.
English
@TheBTCViking Let's be precise. Satoshi inscribed a message in the coinbase tx. A 100B space reserved for the miner. Typically where miners indicate they are the ones who mined this block today. If you leave it empty, it gets replaced by random data and your block is anon.
English
Yah I knew this guy Satoshi who put some "arbitrary data" on the first block. .. just sayin.
English
@MiraReserve @MichaelDunwort1 You ate basically rephrasing what I posted.
English
@LapiuPepe @MichaelDunwort1 No it is not, you just pulled sensationalism out of your ass. Economic node is any user node with real economic activity including verifying incoming transactions and choosing valid chain tips when they arise. Whether the user owns the node directly or via company is irrelevant.
English
“Economic nodes matter” ah yes,
Bitcoin, the proof of stake network.
English
@TheBTCViking Satoshi about spam and malware: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary."
Viking about spam and malware: "There is nothing you can do."
Guess who I trust more?
English
We all agree spam sucks.
But a consensus rule that can render validly-owned coins unspendable is confiscatory in nature, regardless of how narrow the trigger.
Plus 'you know what' doesnt actually stop motivated spammers from spamming. It's a speed bump.
So lets move on to something that doesnt compromise bitcoin.
English
@stephanlivera @MarkPommrehn @zndtoshi You are correct. Core decided to do it unsolicited by anyone. And as soon as they opened the PR, they closed it from comments 11 seconds later. Not at all suspicious, is it?
English
@MarkPommrehn @zndtoshi Citrea didn't ask for Core to change it, you're wrong.
English
BIP110 does not have broad social support. It's Luke, Mechanic and their followers who are trying to ram it through.
But they keep lying to bluff up the support they have.
See @zndtoshi's consensus.health for a quick example
Tone Vays@ToneVays
At least someone is admitting that Segwit had consensus.... But total delusion that 80% of the network wants Bip110 rules ... @zndtoshi literally built a website that anyone with relevance can signal! consensus.health
English
@stephanlivera @zndtoshi Do you actually believe core has broad social support?
English
@Arthur_van_Pelt I'm new on x, what does h/t mean? Am I in trouble? 😆
English
h/t @LapiuPepe for pointing me here.
Sources for the screenshots: BitcoinTalk (where original SourceForge files are posted), Github.
3/3
English
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
English