Mark of Bitcoin

Shouldn't we game it out and have a publicly ready response if that does turn out to be the case? As in, as soon as 110 activates, we have a new code base (let's call it BIP-111) that gets modified on the fly as soon as any spam is developed that is 110 compliant. Thus the VCs can SEE that as soon as 110 expires, we are ready for the next SF that kills their project and their funding.

@CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor Then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. We have plenty of options for a response in any contingency.

Wouldn't it be nice if "Today's News" was actually news, and not just a repackaged version of your "For You" feed.

@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor But we were told "filters don't work" because LibreRelay.

@CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor That is precisely why Core will simply filter spam once BIP-110 activates. The alternative is much more painful for everyone. And I have stated several times that I would be in favor of limiting OP_RETURN permanently, if someone proposes it.

@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor And that's why we support you / it. Now let's make it permanent.

@MarkOfBitcoin @CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor This is precisely what BIP-110 fixes.

@Luis21satoshi @elbrandonmartin @JethroToro @Martez305 @Mission21fund @MURPHSLIFE @PlanBElsalvador @stacyherbert @visionario_btc That is excellent!

I am truly happy today. Some time ago, we successfully dug a well for the El Pedregal community, and today we installed a brand-new submersible pump. This isn't just hardware; it’s a lifeline that will provide water for the community center and maintain the soccer field where our children play. ​If learning about Bitcoin was only about understanding technology or personal gain, I wouldn't be here. To me, no innovation matters unless it transforms lives and brings tangible benefits to the people. ​I founded @Mission21fund as a project to make a real difference. I take immense pride in ensuring that every satoshi, every resource, and every collaboration is channeled directly into helping others. ​I always say: in the communities where we work, you won’t find luxury beaches or mountain retreats. But what you will see is how Bitcoin is capable of penetrating the earth to make water flow for the community.

@_colourorange @dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @GaudreauJordan @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor "reviews seem mixed"... so yeah, I'll have a dig in. Got a link to somewhere I can read further about it?

@MarkOfBitcoin @dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @GaudreauJordan @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor i would suggest learning about OP_CTV which improves L2s like Lightning & Ark and ability to self-custody w/ basic vaults, especially considering BIP110 proponents like Luke, Dathon, and others are supportive of it x.com/LukeDashjr/sta… x.com/dathon_ohm/sta…

@Zatoichi42 @decentmoney2009 It's been a while... Still nothing?

@decentmoney2009 🤞

Ocean, Datum & Knots all share same blessing & curse: Luke - brilliant, eccentric mind, amplified by inspired Mechanic, too faithful for his own good. Luke really did save Bitcoin multiple times. But the end of Spam War: CSAM histerics, messy inconsistent messaging around poorly thought out fork- undercooked semi competent vibe coded 444 rollout (not Luke baby, author barely understands Bitcoin) all showed the hard truth: genius doesn’t always scale to leadership. Huge strategic missteps have a cost. Knots became the refuge for real Bitcoiners - an antidote to Core’s arrogance, and a badly needed client diversification push. The plebs revived Knots and handed Luke a once-in-a-lifetime opening. Momentum was roaring. I myself pulled countless all nighters trying to keep the flame alive. Then came the overreach. Knots leadership drank the Coolaid & forgot low time preference. The vibe cracked. Followers peeled off. The surge stalled. Spin intensified and landed flat. Unfortunately, Core is so much better at this game. Bullshit is not Knots strength. The tragedy is that both Ocean & knots will take permanent collateral damage here, strengthening position of Core. Their biggest Ocean miner has already said a fork isn’t the answer. 444 is a dud. It is not in fact good for Bitcoin, as designed. Conceived as a negotiation tactic, it lost the game before it even started, through incompetent phrasing & design choices that were never meant to fly. Alas, Core pressed Pass, and Knots got stuck with it. There is zero probability of 444 activation, and Luke's stubborn determination will end up at best with a lifeless shitcoin. But... Do not dispare. Thankfully, something new is forming in the shadows. Stay tuned. Keep the faith. Bitcoin marches on. There is no second best. To those, who are selling Bitcoin today just because Core or CSAM or whatever rage quit nonsense, I only have this to say: I am sorry you didn't make it, but HFSP!

@_FutureFavorite @BergeronSpirit @whatever76100 @kinetic_finance @SalvadoranPride What do they do? Are they doing translation on the fly, now? I didn't know that... Will check it out. Thanks for being rudely helpful.

@BergeronSpirit @MarkOfBitcoin @whatever76100 @kinetic_finance @SalvadoranPride AirPods Pro 3 exists for a reason

last week might have been the moment El Salvador became Dubai 2.0, and nobody is talking about it: > safest country in the western hemisphere for 4 years in a row > no middle east war or fallout risk > 0% tax on all foreign-sourced income > 0% property tax > dollarized economy > bitcoin is legal tender, 0% cap gains tax > inflation under 1% > 90-min direct flights to Miami for <$200 > 4-6 hour flights to SFO and NYC for <$400 > world-class surfing > democratically elected president w/ 85%+ approval rating. > first country to give open-source AI developers full legal protection > first country with a sovereign order of NVIDIA's B300 chips > @elonmusk grok AI in 1M+ public school kids' hands > democratically elected president with a 85%+ approval rating > world-class surfing > locally grown coffee, tropical fruit, grass-fed beef - not a supermarket import economy > huge variety of climates - volcanoes, mountains, lakes, and beaches — 12c in the highlands, 34c on the coast > strong christian culture and deep sense of faith > same timezone as US East Coast > country investing massively in public education > beautiful colonial architecture across country

As a tourist, I learnt the basics of Spanish. As a tourist destination, a country should also learn the basics of English. I did not find that to be the case in El Salvador. Now if I was moving there to live, then yes, I agree that one should make every effort to learn the local language you are moving to.

@MarkOfBitcoin @kinetic_finance @SalvadoranPride As a Salvadorian you're a dumb ass if you expect my people to learn English, in the motherland , learn Spanish you lazy hick.

Again, I wish I had your faith in Core / Humanity. But I have personally witnessed the slow rot entering the the leadership of Sydney's largest Bitcoin community. He has held Bitcoin for a LONG time (I believe 13 years or more) and may have a substantial stack. When I first joined the group, I would have called every single person associated with running the group a true Maximalist. Now, the LEADER is using words like "we can't stop spam", and "innovation on Bitcoin is a good thing" and "we need more use cases" and "expanding the ecosystem"... All the buzzwords you hear from the Ethereum camp. It truly makes me sick hearing that crap and makes me lose hope.

@CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor No it does not. Spammers will lose funding, and Core will lose market share unless it filters data spam in policy. It will be even easier the second time.

@dathon_ohm @CaminaDrummer4 @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor I wish I had your faith in Core being good actors.

@CaminaDrummer4 @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor No, they won't. The transactions invalidated by BIP-110 will be non-standard in policy moving forward. There are no historical examples of data spam vectors that became popular while non-standard in Core's defaults.

OK, "forced" may be too strong a word. How about any of these scenarios: Heavily incentivized (who knows what they offered her. They have infinite resources)? Blackmailed (unlikely)? Threatened ("you'll never get a job anywhere if you don't do this one task for us")? She could be a CCP plant for all we know! I really don't think people understand how much of a disruption Bitcoin is to the establishment, and that the establishment have INFINITE resources of ALL KINDS at their disposal. Look at how they tempted Andy Back to the island, whoever he is, right? So even the WILDEST ideas are not beyond the realms of possibility.

that's a reach. forced? come on. people are allowed to change their minds, or maybe, just maybe, they weren't as anti-something as you wanted them to be initially.

1/ Yesterday, Matt Corallo entered a thread to deny that DEI ever influenced a single hiring or funding decision in Bitcoin Core development history. Let's look at what he said, and what the public record shows.

Well, the original post is about El Salvador, and I made a comment that it would be great if they learnt English as a second language, to accommodate ME. As in, *I* am the "immigrant" (tourist, actually) in this circumstance, so doesn't it behoove ME to learn the language of the country I am visiting? I am sure they think we are just as obnoxious and loud speaking when we go visit their country. Perspective, my friend.

@MarkOfBitcoin @whatever76100 @kinetic_finance @SalvadoranPride German is the root of English. I don't have any interest in spanish nor learning another language to accommodate immigrants. I also can't fucking stand how loud and annoying, racist and slow latinos are. I don't want to talk to them.

@bitcoinesian Nope, you have it all correct. Your private group chat is either non-technical, too busy to read, or don't care.

A friend gave me this Lopp text, a 101 blogpost for anyone to get more educated on BIP110: blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guid… The arguments were of so poor quality, I had to re-read to see if I had missed anything. But no, still total garbage. And instead of making me convinced it made me wonder if there may actually be merit to BIP110. Good job ”debunking”! I ended up giving my unfiltered thoughts in a private group chat. To my surprise I didn’t receive a single reaction. So, either I’m an idiot and people were polite or there was something else going on. So I eventually decided I’ll just post my thoughts here instead. You are welcome to tell me why I’m wrong 👇 ”1. High risk of chain splits.” My thoughts: It’s a tactic to force a miner reaction. It’s a bit desperate, but it does seem that there is no other approach that will get a reaction to stop the flood of spam. Quite aggressive in other words, and I like that actually. ”2. Confiscatory rule changes can freeze funds.” My thoughts: Seems like it’s mainly shitcoin-wallets or maybe some esoteric multisig usecase. And if something actually happens then after 1 year those funds will be available again. If someone is worried about this they can just move their funds to a more standard wallet. ”3. Damages Bitcoin's reputation.” My thoughts: I don’t care about the reputation of Bitcoin outside of Bitcoin monetary maxi circles. The very reason Bitcoin is popular is because of the monetary maximalists. To stay popular the monetary maximalists must stay in power. Everybody else should be put in the backseat. Parents shouldnt take advice from their kids. The adults in the room are the ones that should be making the choices. ”4. Subjective rule restrictions are unnecessary.” My thoughts: This is a Core v30 argument. Which I fundamentally disagree with. 1mb limit is wreckless. ”5. Divides the ecosystem.” My thoughts: Ecosystem is already divided. And it is 100% Core’s fault. ”6. Constrains future innovation.” My thoughts: Good 👍 ”7. Slippery slope to centralization and control.” My thoughts: I think the current path of ignoring the node community and stuffing the nodes with crap is the real slippery slope. Ie we are already in dangerous territory and this is an effort to reject a slippery slope. ”8. It actually increases rather than reduces legal and regulatory risks.” My thoughts: Bullshit. Completely theoretical, while the risk of large illegal JPEGS is a real and current legal risk. ”9. Cost of node operation is already constrained by the block size limit.” My thoughts: Let’s restrict the block size.

Yeah, can't say I love it, especially coz they speak so damn fast. But I figure it is probably the second-best language to learn after English, over any other language, because: 1. At least it uses 99% of the same characters as English. I mean seriously, what hope have you got to learn Thai, with all those random squiggles. And then Chinese is a whole new ball-game. And even Russian has those crazy Cyrillic characters. 2. It is kiiiinda based on Latin which is kiiiinda the root of English, so a lot of the words you hear in Spanish you can make out what it means by intuition. What hope have you got making out what "choo tow ning foop" means??!! 🤣

@whatever76100 @MarkOfBitcoin @kinetic_finance @SalvadoranPride I hate Spanish

@dathon_ohm @realbtcjesus @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor And if they don't? We have to do all this over again.

@realbtcjesus @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor I don't think that will happen. Historically, spammers have exited from Bitcoin just from policy changes on a small minority of nodes. They will leave once we show that we are not backing down.

Hi Calle! Cool to see you posting thoughtful reasoning instead of insults and other noise. Hopefully this can serve as a jumping-off-point for continued dialogue between the knots and core sides of this debate. >I'll preface this post with first disqualifying any malicious attempts to misrepresent the motives of either camp. Everybody wants to improve Bitcoin as money. Money is Bitcoin's use case. It's not a data storage system. If you think otherwise, there are countless shitcoins to play with. Awesome! Glad we agree on this 🤝 >I am very confident to say that there is not a single known method to prevent spam in decentralized anonymous open networks other than proof of work. This is what Satoshi realized when he designed Bitcoin and it's why only transaction fees can reliably fight spam without sacrificing any of Bitcoin's properties. Well, no, it’s actually the opposite of that. Satoshi introduced standardness filters in late 2010, because he realized that proof-of-work was *not* sufficient to prevent spam on bitcoin. >Let me explain. Spam prevention is a cat and mouse game. Yes, but since fighting spam is easier than on other systems (x.com/jimmysong/stat… ), it is [almost] trivial for the cat (the people who fight against spam) to win. This is what happened the last time there was a spam attack from shitcoins (blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-…). The cat just has to be credibly persistent in countering every move the spammers try, and the spammers quickly become demoralized and move to other chains. >As a system's architect, your goal is to make the life of a spammer harder (increase the friction). Exactly, and this is precisely what spam filters on bitcoin do: they increase the friction for spammers, which is why we see, for example, 99% fewer large opreturns than we’d see if there were no opreturn filter: x.com/OrangeSurfBTC/… I’m glad that you appear to be finally acknowledging that the knots position has never been: “the goal of spam filters is to block 100% of spam, and the filter doesn’t work if a few spam transactions slip through”. This is, of course, a silly strawman, and I’m glad to see you rising above such nonsense. >This is why, on the web, you see captchas, sign-ups, or anything that can artificially slow you down. Slowing down is key. This is why Satoshi turned to proof of work. …and also spam filters which, again, he implemented in 2010, since PoW by itself was not sufficient. >The fact that you need to update your filters is critical and that's where it ties back to Bitcoin: Suppose you have a mempool filter for transactions with a locktime of 21 because some stupid NFT project uses that. You maybe slow them down for a few weeks, but then they notice it and change their locktime to 22. You're back at zero, the spam filter doesn't work anymore. What do you do? You update your filter! But where do you get your new filter from? >You need a governing body, or some centralized entity that keeps updating these filters and you need to download their new rules every single day. I’m sorry, but you are just assuming that the spam filters need to be authored and distributed by one entity. This may be true for adblockers and email spam filters, but bitcoin is different because proof-of-work makes spam filtration on bitcoin easier (but not *free*!) than on systems that don’t have a per-action fee required. Since spam filtration on bitcoin is easier than on other systems, it’s much easier for the cat to win. Again, see the opreturn battle of 2014 for what happens once we go a few rounds against the spammers: they just flee to other blockchains because building on bitcoin means that bitcoin’s dev team will be “at war” with them (see: why Vitalik quit bitcoin: x.com/cguida6/status…). Since the cat and mouse game is much more biased towards the cat on bitcoin than in other systems, *decentralized* filter authorship, distribution, and deployment works just fine, where it would not work on other systems. >That's what ad blockers in your web browser do. They trust a centralized authority to know what's best for you, and blindly accept their new filters. Every single day. If you think bitcoin noderunners will “blindly” trust some centralized authority, you don’t know bitcoiners. This is another significant difference between spam filtration on bitcoin vs adblockers. If the government starts issuing filters for OFAC transactions, do you *really* expect a large percentage of bitcoin noderunners to comply? Come on, man. >I hope you see the issue here. Nobody should even consider this idea of constantly updating filter rules in Bitcoin. This would give the filter providers a concerning level of power and trust. Bitcoin Core already has this “power and trust”. Democratizing access to filter authorship, as in this BIP proposal (groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c…), solves the problem you are worried about, by making Core no longer the arbiter of policy on bitcoin. How do we make sure a central authority isn’t dictating policy? By allowing noderunners to filter whatever transactions they like. That’s in alignment with bitcoin’s ethos. >It would turn Bitcoin into a centrally planned system, the opposite of what makes Bitcoin special. Yes, and Core deciding policy for everyone is exactly this “centrally planned system” that you fear so much. >This is why filters do not work for decentralized anonymous systems. Yes they do. Again, see the 99% reduction in large opreturns caused by the opreturn filter. You would have to be in deep denial to look at that chart, with a giant cliff at exactly 80B, and say “filters don’t work”. Anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that filters work. The question is not “do they work”; the question is: how *much* do they work? >They require a central authority. You are just making this up >Until now, these rules were determined by Bitcoin Core, but they have realized that these rules do not work anymore. This has more to do with Core fumbling fullrbf than with filters “not working”. >Transactions bypass the filters easily and at some point, carrying them around became a burden to the node runners themselves. Imagine you're using an outdated ad blocker but instead of filtering out ads, it now also filters out legitimate content you might be interested in. That's what mempool filters do, and that's why Bitcoin Core is slowly relaxing these filters. You can’t be saying that cat jpegs are “legitimate content” bitcoiners “might be interested in”? >This has been discussed for over two years, it's not a sudden decision. Yes, and the people trying to fight for bitcoin core to have sensible defaults have been insulted and ignored rather than having their concerns addressed. >The goal of this change is not to help transactions to slip through more easily. But that is definitely the effect! >The goal is to improve your node's prediction of what is going to be in the next block. I don’t need my node to predict exactly what will be in the next block, and it’s impossible for it to do this anyway. >Most people misrepresent this part. They say "it's to turn Bitcoin into a shitcoin" but that is just a false statement at best, or a manipulation tactic at worst. Actions speak louder than words >Let's tie it back to proof of work and why fees are the actual filter that keeps Bitcoin secure and prevents spam reasonably well: Satoshi realized that there is no technique that could slow down block production and prevent denial of service attacks in a decentralized system other than proof of work. Again, you are just making this up. Filters have been around since the days of Satoshi. Yes, the fees make spam filtration *much easier*, but they don’t make it automatic. >Fees prevent you from filling blocks with an infinite number of transactions. All the other options would introduce some form of trust or open the door for censorship – nothing works other than proof of work. You just keep asserting this with no evidence. >He was smart enough to design a system where the proof of work that goes into block production is "minted" into the monetary unit of the system itself: You spend energy, you get sats (mining). This slows down block production. How do you slow down transactions within those blocks? You spend the sats themselves, original earned form block production, as fees for the transactions within the block! This idea is truly genius and it's the only reason why Bitcoin can exist. Yes, but again, transaction fees are *necessary, but not sufficient* for bitcoin to stay money. Otherwise there would have been no reason for Satoshi to implement filters. >All other attempts of creating decentralized money have failed to solve this step. Think about it: without knowing who you are, whether you're one person pretending to be a thousand, or a thousand people pretending to be one. Bitcoin defends itself (and anyone who runs nodes in the Bitcoin system) from spam by making you pay for your activity. Yes, bitcoin is amazing, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need to protect it. >People sometimes counter this by saying: the economic demand for decentralized data storage is higher than the monetary use case. First of all, I think that's just wrong. The logic here is very straightforward: Data spam pays an upfront fee, then enjoys bulletproof integrity and availability guarantees for the rest of eternity. A finite quantity (the upfront fee) divided by an infinite quantity (the amount of time the data is hosted) is zero. This is why payment txs can never fairly compete with data txs. >There are way cheaper ways to store data (there are shitcoins for this), and the value of having decentralized neutral internet money is beyond comparison. None of these “cheaper ways” have the same immutability and availability guarantees as bitcoin block space. What service will host my data for the rest of eternity, and cannot be censored by anyone? The idea that Lightning channel opens and closes for merchants just trying to accept payments in a sovereign way will ever be able to outcompete the data storage use case, *on a level playing field in terms of sats/vB*, is laughable. The only reason bitcoin has managed to stay money thus far is because of bitcoiners’ hostility to spam and spammers. >However, there's a much deeper concern here. If you truly believe this, I ask you: what is Bitcoin worth to you? If you think Bitcoin can't succeed as money (i.e. be competitive), why do you even care? I don’t understand the point of this question. I think bitcoin can succeed wildly as money *if we fight to make it good money*. It will not automatically be the best money ever invented. Agents in the economy need to actually take action and make it happen, by building it and protecting it. >If you're not willing to pay fees for the use case that we all believe Bitcoin is designed for (money), and you believe that no one is willing to pay for it, how can it even persist into the future? With mempool filters… >You can't have it all. I don’t know what this means, but we’ve been “having it all” since Satoshi introduced spam filters in 2010, so I guess you are wrong. >If Bitcoin is money (which I believe it is), then we need to pay the price to keep it alive. Exactly, mempool filters are the price. >There is no free lunch. Either we centralize, or we pay the price of decentralization. I know where I stand. False dichotomy. Decentralized filtering is the way. Let the cat-and-mouse game commence! >Peace. Peace man!

@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor I get what you’re saying: the spammers will adapt. Doesn’t 110 limit the overall data packet size maximums so that spammers have to break their crap up into smaller chunks and thus make it more expensive? Doesn’t it limit the UTXO bloat?

@CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor Making BIP-110 permanent would not accomplish anything.

@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor Do you really think Core give two shits about this soft fork conflict? Look at how quickly they are wanting to activate v31 to lock in the crap from v30!

@CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor Why would Core stop filtering after BIP-110 expires? That would immediately precipitate another softfork conflict.

I don’t want annual renewal either. Well, if it takes as much arguing, effort, signalling, node upgrades… all the crap we are going through now, to make it happen each year, that’s too much to expect. Now if this is successful, which I’m hoping it will be, and then FUTURE ones are a lot easier because of something in the code makes it easier to activate, without all the BS… OK, I’d like to hear the mechanism of that. If not, then I’m for making it permanent and then even moving onto The CAT.

@realbtcjesus @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor You're saying that you want "annual renewal"? Or that you _don't_ want annual renewal?

Look how hard Core and the shitcoin machine is working against us right now. Look at the splitting of the camps. Look at the burnout that some on our side are already feeling. How often do you think this amount of energy can be expired? Remember, the ones we are fighting have INFINITE fiat reserves.