Maxima Freiman

@TimJSwan @_Eph91_ @dathon_ohm I have no interest in pride for a product born from double-hardforked failure.

@MaximaFreiman @_Eph91_ @dathon_ohm Huh? Do you even know what a high edge count network looks like? youtube.com/watch?v=GuJB0P… Also, SPV is in the whitepaper.. you need the simplest of software to verify transactions.

"BIP110 is censorship!" Satoshi (2010): "Hold my coffee and hate me more, baby." ☕ He nuked 15 opcodes in one go just to make sure Bitcoin survived its infancy. Without BIP. If he did it to keep it as Electronic Cash, why are we crying over BIP110?

@TimJSwan @dathon_ohm If you want a chain where 'lawful data' is decided by miners and 'scaling' means only data centers can run nodes, you've already found your home in BSV. We prefer Bitcoin to stay decentralized and permissionless.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm It works perfectly fine with all op codes as electronic cash. It's called BSV, now, and double hashing will separate the mining markets as well as allow nodes to ignore data which they deem unlawful. 🤷‍♂️ Original protocol was designed to work. V0.1 Bitcoin

@Krev2323 @dathon_ohm Satoshi is dissapeared at 2011. Read this and take a look to the code copyright at 2009 - 2010: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi… And i'm sorry. I don't need your "Satoshi is killed" conspiracy, dammit.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm He didn't. Whoever murdered him, and introduced the block-size limit did.

@gsovereigntyg @_Eph91_ @dathon_ohm The node must stay light enough for a regular person to run.

@gsovereigntyg @_Eph91_ @dathon_ohm If the UTXO set grows faster than hardware, the cost of verification will force everyone into 'Paper Bitcoin' anyway because they can't afford a node. You can't have self-custody if you can't verify the ledger. Whether it's L1 or Lightning.

After weeks of work, I am finally sharing my BIP draft The Cat: Non-monetary UTXO Cleanup. It is a soft fork proposal focused on preventing and cleaning up non monetary UTXO spam. Please read before commenting. I am seeking serious, critical review. github.com/ostromcode/The…

@_Eph91_ @dathon_ohm The code might not be fragile, but decentralization is. If we allow arbitrary data to bloat the chain just because we feel "safe" now. It’s not just about Satoshi’s vision. It’s about making sure anyone can still afford to verify the ledger.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm Disabled not nukes. Bitcoin isn't about Satoshis Vision (there's BSV for that lol) It was removed bc it could have broken btc or used as an attack. Bitcoin nowadays is nothing like it was in 2010, not as fragile and definitely not as vulnerable

@Nahoyeha Right.

Right?

@OtherBarryBTC @Darrigel @dathon_ohm Arbitrary data creates "dust" that stays in the UTXO set forever. Nodes need this set in RAM for fast validation, so bloat pushes hardware costs too high for average users. If data growth outpaces hardware, only data centers can verify the chain and decentralization dies.

@MaximaFreiman @Darrigel @dathon_ohm How does arbitrary data bloat the UTXO set?

@baclfoo @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm Bitcoin is for decentralized growth, not infinite bloat. Relying on hardware to outrace data spam is how you end up with an elite-only database. BIP110 is a temporary measure to protects the UTXO set until better solutions arrive. Time will be the judge. Out.

@MaximaFreiman @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm what? over reacting to a non issue is a failure of engineering. >only elites can afford, database what are these arguments based on? >bip110 ensures it wont stop spam. it wont substantially reduce spam. it's temporary. you do know that bitcoin is designed to grow infinitely?

@baclfoo @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm Waiting for the system to break 'immediately' is a failure of engineering. If your programmability requires nodes that only elites can afford, you've built a database, not Bitcoin. BIP110 ensures the common man can still verify the UTXO set.

@MaximaFreiman @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm no. bip110 has about 0.5% the urgency of disabling the opcodes. they found bugs that would break bitcoin immediately, not in 10 years. satoshi did not envision any explosion. satoshi envisaged programmability!

@baclfoo @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm Satoshi said the core design was 'set in stone,' yet he was the one who added the 1MB limit and disabled those opcodes just weeks later. BIP110 is protecting the nodes from exactly the kind of explosion Satoshi feared. Survival is the only rule that's truly "set in stone."

@MaximaFreiman @BeckyDominic55 @dathon_ohm rather than debug them in production, he disabled them so they could be referenced for restoration. a complete opposite to bip110. satoshi envisaged a complex programming environment. and instead of making unsubstantiated claims, it's time we ensured that legacy remains.

@xrulescu @dathon_ohm And that's a problem. Nodes over genius bastard coders.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm Some of the Core devs believe themselves to be smarter that Satoshi.

@BeckyDominic55 @baclfoo @dathon_ohm Agreed. But Building blocks are useless if they compromise the foundation bugs. Satoshi nuked those opcodes to prioritize node survival over experiments, and BIP110 does exactly the same for P2P Cash.

@baclfoo @MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm Not exactly. Bitcoin’s original protocol included some op-codes, but many weren’t fully intended for complex smart contracts. They existed more as building blocks than as core functionality. Over time, their practical use evolved beyond what Satoshi envisioned.

@baclfoo @dathon_ohm It's up to youuu...

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm catastrophic bugs vs luke said they're bad hmm. have fun with your hobby chain.

@baclfoo @dathon_ohm They were features, but they became vulnerabilities. Satoshi realized that a functional 'Peer to Peer Electronic Cash' is more important than keeping broken or dangerous opcodes. He chose survival over completeness.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm are you saying those op-codes werent the original function of bitcoin? even though they were original functions of bitcoin? i'm confused.

@baclfoo @dathon_ohm And you must know that UTXO set bloat because inscription is a long-term security and decentralization bugs. BIP110 will fix it temporary. As it's name. Reduced Data Temporary Softfork.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm >to make sure Bitcoin survived its infancy. correct. and this has nothing to do with bip110, it was to stop the threat of catastrophic bugs.

@baclfoo @dathon_ohm The restoration is about restoring the Bitcoin function as pure money. BIP110 is a temporary yet strict way to do it. And it must.

@MaximaFreiman @dathon_ohm /you, satoshi nuked a whole swathe of functionality /also you, it's about restoring the original function um. so we restoring the op-codes? i'm down with that.

@OtherBarryBTC @Darrigel @dathon_ohm Heh. UTXO set bloat is a long-term and slow-motion security bug, and BIP110 is the patch to keep the network decentralized. Security and decentralization must go hand-in-hand. Unchecked spam is a bug that kills nodes for the common people.

@MaximaFreiman @Darrigel @dathon_ohm Satoshi disabled opcodes due to concrete security bugs. That’s not the same as trying to classify “acceptable use” of otherwise valid transactions.

@_jfrader @DonalDevine @LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm Bah... It's up to you. "You didn't even get what i said..." What a template from Core30 militants. If you want to get your suffer because your UTXO set has been bloated in your node, it's up to you. I don't.

@MaximaFreiman @DonalDevine @LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm You didn't even get what I said