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…

@derekmross @lukedewolf @djsenior13 @GrassFedBitcoin It's the fake news that is lying to you. Forking was not a goal. Core30 forced us into it. And BIP110 is nothing like the lies in that fake news. Is it possible Bitcoin needs to hardfork in the future? Always. Is it a plan today? No.

for me it's the fact that a fork, hard or soft, was the goal all along and we were lied to saying that wasn't the goal, when it fact it was the goal. it's really hard for me because i talked with @GrassFedBitcoin about this for 30 minutes at Imagine If last year and he told me that this wasn't the goal. i don't like being lied to, or told half truths, especially to my face. i still respect Mechanic though. incredibly smart and kind person. i still remember meeting him in Miami 2022 when he was working at the Start9 booth. i introduced myself and he said he was Mechanic and i smiled a little once i recognized the nym. i just wish i knew the reasons behind the lie and half truths. maybe he's in too deep? like i said, i believe in the mission, i just don't believe in the path to get there. i'd like to take another path.

BIP-110 supporters aren't bad people. They're our friends. They're incredibly passionate Bitcoiners that realize Bitcoin is money and hate spam. Unfortunately, their passion for Bitcoin as money and their hatred for spam has clouded their judgement and made them forget what makes Bitcoin beautiful.

@derekmross @lukedewolf @djsenior13 So you're acting based on lies...

@lukedewolf @djsenior13 This was the new information that made me stop running Knots. I went back to Core after this. therage.co/leaked-luke-da…

Why I think many who are less optimistic about BIP110 than I am are mistaken - The "Economic Node" concept. This emerged as a way to dismiss obviously frivolous nodes that get spun up in an effort to astroturf forks within Bitcoin. Very quickly during the fork wars people realized - "Hey, these nodes might not actually represent any real activity within the Bitcoin ecosystem, they're just there to warp the stats on node tracking websites and make something look like it has more support/opposition than it does." I will point out that that is *not* what has happened with BIP110/Knots in general - those are real people which @start9labs can attest to, having sold millions of dollars worth of servers to people over the last couple of years who overwhelmingly bought them in order to run Knots. That is not fake and is corroborated through various imperfect heuristics. However the point I want to make is that the most intimidating of economic nodes - i.e the ones run by mining behemoths like Antpool or exchanges like Coinbase - are not where anyone should look when attempting to gauge support for a soft fork - especially a controversial one. (At least not until very late in the day.) These nodes obviously represent a huge on-chain footprint, but conversely, they are run by companies who will be the last to take a stand on anything controversial as it has the potential to create drama for them over a decision that isn't theirs to make anyway. However the lesser economic nodes aren't concerned with that. They don't have legal/PR depts or shareholders who need to sign off on these things (or who will sue them if they do something "reckless". They can just adopt a new client if they think it's good for Bitcoin. When Bitcoin is in crisis mode with difficult decisions to make, the institutions are going to be the last to choose a direction and that is a *good* thing. Ideally soft forks to start as grassroots movements, and while the nodes indicating support for them may not be run by billion dollar mining empires/exchanges, as long as they represent real Bitcoiners, the change will be coming from the correct place - from those least likely to be under duress unlike large industry players who necessarily always would be.

Economic odds are “economic” precisely because they respond to their customers desires They’re followers, not leaders, in any kind of fork decision

I’ve had many people ask me to explain this tweet. The key to understanding it imo is this: The future rules are the current rules. Luke is correctly pointing out that bitcoin consensus is defined not only by how it rejects blocks currently, but also how it will reject them in the future. That’s why he uses the example of the block subsidy decrease. Your node runs a rule about how much this subsidy decreases in the future. You don’t update your node in the future to get that new rule, it’s already there. The future schedule is the rule. So start from that point and re-read it.

@Positive23023 @MaxY0rk @ToneVays @adam3us Not even close.

@MaxY0rk @ToneVays @LukeDashjr @adam3us Exactly. Adam is far more knowledgeable and trustworthy than Luke.

.@ToneVays We shouldn't follow one guy named @LukeDashjr because he proposes a change to the code, but we should all follow another one guy because he's "more experienced", named @adam3us The amount of gaslighting and outright lies is unprecedented.

@LLicket @discipline365d @dathon_ohm 🤡

@discipline365d @LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm x.com/kristiancsep/s… Are you still adamant about your stenography argument? Maybe I shouldn't care, but you sound like a logical Bitcoiner, and you told me to correct you if you are wrong. This is proof that should make you at least reconsider your position

Fear mongering like this reminds me of the 2017 shenanigans from Roger Ver and his friends before they made the Bcash fork. I remember they tried to convince people that Bcash was better by piousl purposely spamming the network. ... and where are they now? #Bitcoin

@btcquokka @ChrisMc_L It is always possible for anyone to "fork off" - that's impossible to prevent, and shouldn't even be a goal (if they really want to go, they have that right). But if they don't do anything, they will be on the BIP110 blockchain (aka Bitcoin).

@LukeDashjr @ChrisMc_L I’ve been thinking about this. Doesn’t this mean technically speaking it is possible that Core v.30+ nodes fork off in isolation and not the rest as the rest have consensus - mostly.

I've been quiet on the ongoing debate of Core vs Knots. I want Bitcoin to be a monetary network only. It's not possible to eliminate spam, but limiting non-monetary transactions is positive in my book. I have a problem with what Core did. They didn't change Bitcoin, because they can't. Nodes control Bitcoin, not development teams. But they did nudge the network's behavior through inertia. Changing policy defaults without consensus is soft power. It's influence. That's dangerous. On BIP 110, my issue isn't the goal. It's the 55% signalling threshold. Consensus changes should need overwhelming agreement, not a simple majority. The thing I love that came out of this: client diversity is good for Bitcoin. Knots is a positive reaction by the community. We can't have one group having influence without pushback. It's a good thing for node runners to have options. That's where I stand. Money first, sovereignty at the node level, and a high bar for changing the rules.

@Scavacini777 Looks like you need to upgrade

Node is going back online after a restart/update session. 🔥 🪢 Running Bitcoin.

Economic nodes is a real thing. Coinbase checks with their node that a transaction to them has confirmed. If it says no, then they don't credit your account. This is the only time a node matters for consensus. But Coinbase is just a proxy for their customers. If people want to buy bitcoins and Coinbase gives them some scamcoin instead, it's not going to work out well for Coinbase.

This is a new concept I've heard recently from the Bitcoin Conference type group. That there are Bitcoin nodes and Bitcoin "Economic" nodes. I don't understand what they are exactly thinking. Is Coinbase's node somehow different from mine? Ok, so I send 1 transaction to my node, and Coinbase does like a 100 on their's. It's like the same thing. Their node verifies my 1 transaction and relays it, and my node verifies their 100 transactions and relays it. I could understand a computer with more ram and faster cpu slightly verifying and relaying faster, but not enough to matter much. My refurbished HP mini Bitcoin Knots node does the same transactions everyday as Coinbase's.

Bitcoin “Economic nodes” explained by @LynAldenContact in less than 60 seconds 👇

The company responsible for 25% of the nodes on the network runs BIP110. Probably nothing!

@CaminaDrummer4 Uh oh, I started drinking water 3 months ago. Is it going to make me retarded?

Hitler drank water. Core drinks water.

@LoveIsBitcoin21 Go away, scammer

Let's talk about Bitcoin governance. You have a proposal called BIP-110. It wants to "temporarily" freeze certain types of transactions to kill Ordinals. Sounds reasonable, right? Here's the problem: it has 0.31% hashpower. 2% node support. Its creator says "it's too late to cancel." And 1.7 million BTC could get caught in the crossfire. The August clock is ticking. Mystery miners just appeared out of nowhere. The question nobody's asking: if 99% of the network says no and the 1% who says yes won't back down — what happens to YOUR coins? Read the full breakdown: Coupon LOVEISBITCOIN at

@LadyMonke @ChrisMc_L Nothing nuts about 110

@ChrisMc_L Well said. Core went nuts, knots was good, then bip 110 went nuts.

@knutsvanholm Good actors don't cancel people for honest mistakes, which would be the absolute worst-case scenario for BIP110 even if it had no other support whatsoever.

Whenever someone tells me I should "worry about my reputation," I giggle a little, because it's quite revealing. Whether they are genuinely concerned or just trying to threaten me doesn't matter. What they don't understand is that people who are honest to themselves as well as to others don't ever have to, or even can, think about their reputation. You gain a good reputation by being a good person and standing up for what you believe in. Not by gamifying your words to gain a good reputation.

@P_ScottMorgan @Pakkaustukku It's literally in the title

@Pakkaustukku @LukeDashjr Can you point to the section in the Bitcoin whitepaper, or indeed in the code itself, which supports your bold claim? (I can save you the effort and tell you now that you will not find it)

Removing rules is a hardfork. That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110. Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt. And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed. There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.

Here's a thought experiment: 110 activates. All Core nodes produce blocks that are incompatible with the consensus chain. All the miners capitulate within a day. There is only one thing Core can do or they will literally never be relevant again: Merge 110, and release Core 32 on 10/10. github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi… Also since y'all like gambling so much, here's a new thing to gamble on... @predyx_markets Put me down for whatever $20 worth of sats get YES on "Core Devs merge BIP 110 by October 10th, 2026".

@LeeringObserver BIP110 is also a pre-scheduled consensus rule already in the protocol.

The halving is a pre-scheduled consensus rule already in the protocol, it activates automatically at a fixed block height, no signalling needed. That's why it happens with zero miner signalling. BIP-110 is a new proposed soft fork. It is not already in the rules. It requires either miner signalling (55% threshold) or a UASF flag day to activate. Miners don't make the rules, correct, but new consensus changes still need sufficient support to activate without causing issues. Comparing a scheduled event to a contested new restriction is a false equivalence. You should know this + you still haven't shown where the "sufficient support" for BIP-110 is. 😂

"You don't know what you're talking about" isn't an argument. BIP-110 currently has near-zero miner signalling. The default (status quo) rules continue without it. Not activating a proposed soft fork isn't a hard fork, that's basic protocol mechanics. If you have actual data showing sufficient miner support or why rejecting an under-supported UASF suddenly becomes a hard fork, share it. Otherwise it's just noise.

@_Butter_F_L_Y Doesn't matter

@LukeDashjr I will be renting a VPS to make my node a listening node, however : How do ensure that all node crawler websites count me as "listening"? Each site has different stats. Varies quite a bit !!!

Coffeezilla would say BIP110’s biggest risk is that too many nodes are going to want to run it.