Perpetual_BTC #BIP-110

Why Foundry asking its hashmongers to vote means BIP-110 is (probably) winning! They just asked their miners how the pool should signal on BIP-110. Votes weighted by 10-day hashrate. According to Foundry, majority rules. Over 51% yes? They signal with 100% of blocks. Otherwise, silence. I don't believe them. This is why. There were basically two ways to stop BIP-110: One was a counterfork, or URSF. This is not happening. The other was for the big miners to simply ignore it, which they could have easily done if the movement was small enough. But as soon as one of the big mining pools starts suspecting that another big one will signal, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario starts kicking in. Ignoring makes no sense anymore, since this now actually risks losing blocks. By asking their hashmongers to vote, Foundry is signaling to the other big pools that they're ready to flip the bit, meaning that the other pools are now incentivized to flip it because of the knowledge that Foundry might. The cascading dominoes of the "red button" have thus already begun to fall. Given this information, it no longer makes any sense for any pool, including Foundry itself, not to press the red button, since all that can lead to from this point on is more risk. Ignoring is no longer an option. bitcoinmagazine.com/news/foundry-a…

@BigpictureBTC @nvk Sounds exactly like Saylor. The same type of word salad in an attempt to avoid addressing a clear and specific question that can have a clear and specific answer. Terrible look as you should well know by now.

@Perpetual_BTC @nvk It’s a flawed question because that is not the case. Bitcoin is an open source protocol where users innovate and compete at the edges. I understand the question using correct principles.

I’m sorry saying “plebs don’t matter.” hurt you. My point was about Bitcoin’s power structure, not anyone’s worth. In a fork/consensus dispute, influence is not evenly distributed. Economically significant actors exercising validation have a lot more leverage, as do miners with substantial hashrate. Simply running a node with little to no relative economic activity does not create meaningful consensus influence. Bitcoin is not a democracy/rebellion/tyranny, It protects your bitcoin from it. Economic validation and hashrate, not raw node count, set consensus. That may be unpleasant given the disdain for some of the current block space non-standard use. But it is how Bitcoin works. It does not mean ordinary users are worthless. There are a lot of good ppl on both sides. All this personal animosity is pointless, I have friends on all sides. We can disagree without making each other enemies. This whole thing is yuk. BIP110 is DOA imo. I don’t want to see ppl lose money over it.

@BigpictureBTC @nvk You deliberately avoid answering the question that I ask. I ask again: if consensus is to turn Bitcoin into a dumping ground for junk that endangers the future decentralization of nodes would you blindly follow that consensus? A simple question that requires a yes or a no.

You don’t get to dictate what is hardcoded into Bitcoin’s base layer. Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralisation, permissionlessness, and voluntary consensus. If there isn’t overwhelming support for a base-layer change, especially one that is extremely difficult to reverse, it should remain optional. Your node, your choice. Do what you want with your node and Bitcoin. There is no guarantee BIP 110 permanently solves the problem it targets, but there is a real risk that encoding subjective restrictions into consensus weakens the open source, permissionless principles that make Bitcoin credible in the first place.

@BigpictureBTC @nvk So if overwhelming consensus is that the blockchain should be allowed to be absolutelly filled up with junk (exerting an ever greater cost of running a node) you would be fine with that consensus and would not try to do a thing?

@Perpetual_BTC @nvk Bitcoin was on sovereignty, where no one can unilaterally change the base layer without overwhelming consensus.

@BigpictureBTC @nvk The "narrative being pushed" is that Bitcoin is money and spam has no place on its blockchain because over time it would make its use as a MoE punitive and it would weaken node decentralization. One starts to wonder why this is so hard to understand.

@nvk The plebs are against it despite the narrative being pushed.

@MarcanoFilms @saylor Their opinions do not matter at all. The only thing that matters is your Knots node enforcing BIP 110.

1/ As we approach BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window in early August, the expected FUD is ramping up. Figures like @saylor are publicly opposing it, claiming there are “110 things more dangerous than spam” and warning about precedents. Reality check: This is about protecting Bitcoin’s core purpose.

People say Bitcoin is too volatile to be money. Gold and silver have fallen sharply in recent months—despite serving as money for roughly 5,000 years. Don’t get distracted by volatility.

@saylor You have never advocated for the grassroots values and principles that Satoshi built Bitcoin for. Self custody. Running a node. Running a miner. Using Bitcoin as both SoV and MoE. You have never published proof of reserves. You are not an ally.

Fiat currency is the problem. Companies, institutions, securities, and technologies that strengthen Bitcoin are part of the solution. We can debate ideas without mistaking allies for enemies.

Wise words worth paying attention to.

WARNING!!!🚨 Bitcoin is way too volatile to be a store of value. Down over 50% in just a couple of month. Proof it can never serve that role. BTW, this is a silver chart. GM.

Your node matters. Run Knots. Enforce BIP 110 with no mercy and no respect for scammers, spammers and deeply compromised and captured bad actors.

Bitcoin’s value is derived entirely from its singular purpose as decentralized money that anyone can use permissionlessly via a node. Therefore, “any non-monetary ‘use case’ is an abuse case.” - @knutsvanholm Understanding this truth is fundamental to understanding Bitcoin. 🧡

Satoshi saying #Bitcoin should keep arbitrary data OUT #BIP110

@1914ad None.

Name the top three incentives for Bitcoin node runners to relay non-monetary arbitrary data with their node. Yeah. That’s what I thought.

Run Knots BIP 110. Relentlessly and with a passion. Take a stand. Do not sit on the fence while Bitcoin needs you.

Knotzis are neither here to make new friends nor interested in core's circlejerk.

@PiusSprenger Bitcoin in cold storage. There is no second best.

$3 billion cash and market still doesn’t care. What’s going on here?

@saylor @Strategy Here is a piece of advise to you: publish proof of reserves of your Bitcoin holdings. Let the world verify that you hold real Bitcoin and not just hot air.

People keep giving me advice.

Spamming the chain places a burden on all INDEPENDENT nodes and will eventually lead to their extinction! This fits to a FIAT business model —in which Bitcoin could ideally be used as a controlled element! BIP110 will be a crucial step in preventing the demise of decentralization

The plebs are taking a stand. We defend the network from extractors and expose malicious narratives before they can exploit the less informed. #BIP110