ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110

1.9K posts

ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 banner
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110

ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110

@ScarcityMan

Investor, bitcoin enthusiast, hopeful for humanity's future, and looking for robotic enhancements in all the wrong places... Financial commentary, not advice.

Katılım Kasım 2025
70 Takip Edilen293 Takipçiler
Fernando Nikolić 🇦🇷 🟠
Going around crying about how bitcoin used to be about X and complain that now it's all about Y is nostalgia for something that never existed. There was no single bitcoin culture. There was a small group of people who mostly agreed because there were only a few people around. Now it's a bunch of people showing up for a hundred different reasons. Some want freedom, some want gainz, some don't trust their bank anymore, whatever. The idea that suitcoiners corrupted some pure original bitcoin is cope. Nobody corrupted anything. Bitcoin just got big.
English
3
4
26
1K
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
They're in the post you didn't read carefully. Here it is, even more clearly spelled out for you: In order to make the statement "All of this fork discussion is basically a debate about which bucket to put spam into, since there isn’t a proposal on the table to materially reduce spam" Lyn Alden utterly fails to make the following distinctions, all of which are of importance when determining what, if anything, BIP-110 is doing or not doing: - That which "bucket" data lands in matters because not all buckets are the same - That difficulty of abuse matters because... like, incentives and barriers matter - That level of official sanction matters because there's obviously a difference between thieves breaking windows vs being let in the front door So when she says the BIP-110 does nothing to "materially reduce spam," that's just false, if you consider that forcing it back into steganography and fewer code exploits and away from official support is a "material" reduction, which I certainly do. So one has to decide what the definition of a "material reduction" is. However, it's mostly irrelevant, because even if it DIDN'T "materially reduce spam," that's not a valid reason not to close obvious loopholes in bitcoin's intention. You don't leave bugs and attack vectors in place just because others would still exist. This is basically an appeal to futility. I've pointed this out to her before and it made no difference and did not change her opinion, because she is not arguing from a place of pure logic. She's clearly got an opinion on what matters to bitcoin, what counts as "material," and whether or not bugs in software are worth fixing. So that's cool, but that's like, her opinion man. My logic rests on different buckets being different, difficultly of abuse being important, and level of "officialness" in support mattering. By any of those measures, "material" reductions exist. She IGNORES all of these distinctions to arrive at the point that BIP-110 doesn't do anything worthwhile. But I can logic, so I know what she says makes no sense if you believe any of those distinctions matter. Hopefully that helps you.
English
1
2
1
41
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Feels like you haven't been listening or understanding the debate, or maybe you're captured too. This isn't difficult: BIP-110 stops official arbitrary data storage. Anything else is a lie. Bitcoin, only has ONE place for official arbitrary data storage in transactions, called OP_RETURN. Restrict that, and you restrict the official ability to store porn on bitcoin. Ramming it in somewhere else with steganographic attacks or via code exploits, are NOT supported uses of bitcoin and are therefore subject to fixes later. We stop OFFICIAL exploits now, and then work on the rest, iteratively. Which part of this is not clear? I welcome the discussion. Seriously. I'm a BIP-110 supporter. I'm reaching outside of my echo chamber. Prove me wrong.
Lyn Alden@LynAldenContact

@Bongo_King1 I sympathize with those who are concerned about spam on bitcoin, but I’d invite you to look around and see that you’re in an echo chamber that makes a minority fork (which doesn’t solve the issue) feel like the majority.

English
40
23
190
45.4K
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
First and foremost BIP-110 reasserts the designed purpose of bitcoin as money by enforcing data limits at the consensus level in its one and only designated place to store arbitrary, non-monetary data in transactions to its cultural and historical policy default levels. Everything else is secondary. Not doing this allows the culture to continue to slip (past the point of no return in my estimation) to bitcoin being the "whatever I woke up today and decided it should be network" which I believe is inherently valueless and open to capture.
English
1
0
0
16
Darrowaf
Darrowaf@Darrowadf·
@ScarcityMan yeah that's why I said "even if that was the original intent." I'm talking about the reality of bitcoin's situation now, not how it was originally envisioned. Articulate how BIP 110/not enacting BIP impacts the value of bitcoin, not just your vision of what bitcoin should be
English
1
0
0
6
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
@stahks_lol @jeftovic I've followed it for over fifteen years, bought my first sats in 2022, and only within the past year have become full on orange-pilled radical. Took me a long time to get here, but I got here.
English
0
0
0
3
Aaron
Aaron@stahks_lol·
@ScarcityMan @jeftovic Hi @ScarcityMan I'm genuinely curious, if I may ask, how long have you considered yourself a Bitcoiner? E.g., about when did you hold your first bitcoin?
English
1
0
0
20
Guillotine
Guillotine@mybenxtime·
@DadGuy1986 @LynAldenContact @ScarcityMan They increased the size of op_return to allow spam to be put there instead of on the utxo set to level the playing field for miners. It is less burdensome on op_return then utxo. Bip110 does not stop spam, so calling everyone pedos or being for porn on btc is just idiotic
English
2
0
0
96
ClioBitcoinBank 🏴‍☠️
ClioBitcoinBank 🏴‍☠️@ClioBitcoinBank·
@ScarcityMan If you want to limit data, you need to study information theory and open fields at least. Without those you can't even begin to understand the technicals of the opposition.
English
1
0
1
11
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Total false equivalence. I am unvaxed and pro-BIP-110. And I don't care about filters. I care about data limitations, as all sensible network protocols that wish to protect themselves against attack are. Is your bank a "Covidian" when it prevents you from adding a novel to your memo field? Is your webmail "Covidian" when it prevents you from attaching a movie to an email? No, they are just protecting their networks, because they want those networks to continue to exist next year. Why is bitcoin not allowed to have an official, arbitrary data limit in transactions, lest anyone calling for it be considered [insert-unsavory-thing-here]? Seems like victim blaming when it's my node that has to store filth from people like this, while people like you argue that I need to essentially just shut up and take it:
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 tweet mediaScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 tweet mediaScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 tweet mediaScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 tweet media
Javier Hermosa@JavierHermosa21

Ok, after a couple of interactions with BIP-110 Crusader, the Covidian “you should wear your mask” vibes (“you should wear your filters”) are so strong that I am hereby publicly declaring myself against BIP-110. Disclaimer: solely my personal opinion and not a representation of Braiins’ position.

English
3
1
16
363
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
> "Bip110 doesnt stop spam." Correct. Holy shit, did you just win the argument?! No, because BIP-110 is restricting OP_RETURN and removing OP_IF (most notably), and it succeeds really well at those things. Those things it actually set out to do. > "Centralizing code maintenance to luke..." I'm just going to say that it's obvious you don't know anything about open source software development and leave it at that.
English
1
0
1
8
Guillotine
Guillotine@mybenxtime·
@ScarcityMan @LynAldenContact Bip110 doesnt stop spam. Its that simple. If spam will still happen, better op_return than utxo. Centralizing code maintenance to luke is a threat & introducing censorship for sunjective reasons is itself a threat vector.
English
1
0
0
11
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Some common, simple anti-BIP-110 arguments and some common, simple rebuttals:
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan

Lets get ahead of this. "But it doesn't stop spam." We're not talking about all exploits and steganography. We're talking about limiting the designated pathway for it. "You can just filter at the node level." Not when the very ability to do so is under constant threat of being removed, and also this does nothing whatsoever to stop our archival nodes from carrying it FOREVER. "It's rushed." Then help us find issues. The code is only a few dozen lines: bitcoinknots.org/learn/bip110-c…. You probably know people who can help. "It doesn't do enough." Why would that mean we DON'T activate it? Isn't that an argument for just continuing to work on the problem after activation? "Bitcoin isn't under existential threat." I don't know which was the degree of temperature that matters most, but the frog is boiling. If you're looking for a single event to signal the threat, you won't see it until it's too late to act. "Your node doesn't matter. Only 'economic nodes' matter." Then bitcoin is dead. I'll wear black and cry at the funeral. Will you?

English
0
0
4
161
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Lets get ahead of this. "But it doesn't stop spam." We're not talking about all exploits and steganography. We're talking about limiting the designated pathway for it. "You can just filter at the node level." Not when the very ability to do so is under constant threat of being removed, and also this does nothing whatsoever to stop our archival nodes from carrying it FOREVER. "It's rushed." Then help us find issues. The code is only a few dozen lines: bitcoinknots.org/learn/bip110-c…. You probably know people who can help. "It doesn't do enough." Why would that mean we DON'T activate it? Isn't that an argument for just continuing to work on the problem after activation? "Bitcoin isn't under existential threat." I don't know which was the degree of temperature that matters most, but the frog is boiling. If you're looking for a single event to signal the threat, you won't see it until it's too late to act. "Your node doesn't matter. Only 'economic nodes' matter." Then bitcoin is dead. I'll wear black and cry at the funeral. Will you?
English
0
0
2
187
Lyn Alden
Lyn Alden@LynAldenContact·
I run a node. It has a block size limit. If it did not, I wouldn’t run it. As for content, I don’t want data that can be assembled into vile images on my node. I also don’t really want transactions by the North Korean government on it either. But alas. I If someone proposes a way to exclude vile images from bitcoin consensus, I’m happy to check it out. This current fork still has many ways to get them in there, it’s under a year old, and the implementation that supports it only has one maintainer, and I don’t particularly want to run a one-maintainer node implementation. One of my favorite features of Bitcoin is how resistant it is to change. If it could change easily, I’d sell it. Big fan of market forces though. People have a right to try to fork.
English
12
12
248
12.4K
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
People keeping saying this "fork off" thing like it's some kind of threat. We don't care. We are ALL IN. Are you?
Steven von Niceness@Billyndroid

@TronMonGone @SteveSimple @mattkratter @LynAldenContact @Kestrel_23 @ScarcityMan Knots is about to fork off with less support than bcash. Do you think anyone will hang around using an old version knots on bitcoin when this fails? Or that Luke will maintain it if the chain splits? There are way too many unknowns to even think about.

English
2
0
7
190
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
55% is miner activation only, and it was set low to prevent large mining pools from having effective veto power. It is a formality and a courtesy extended to miners. If that's not good enough for them, that's too bad, because BIP-110 will be activated with 100% certainty no matter what and then they can decide if they want to take over the network or respect the nodes.
English
1
0
2
10
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
I'm not taking history or any other kinds of lessons from someone who thinks Satoshi's coinbase inputs are comparable to OP_RETURN (which he tried to prevent becoming arbitrary data storage) or that spam is no different from money. You need to be educated before we can debate, and you don't want that, so there's no point.
English
0
0
0
3
Mark E. Jeftovic
Mark E. Jeftovic@jeftovic·
@ScarcityMan I dunno, most of the people I know with degrees in electrical engineering can muddle their way through software.
English
1
0
2
108
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
No offense intended, but I think you're showing your ignorance of software here when you add qualifiers like "young" or "quick" (as you've done elsewhere) to describe the fork. The code and scope were kept INTENTIONALLY simple to iterate on later and many would argue it was far too slow to arrive, including myself: bitcoinknots.org/learn/bip110-c…. With all the FUD we've been dealing with, what chance would code any more complex than this have of getting through? You argue it's not enough while someone else on your side argues it's too much or too rushed... So which is it? More serious mitigations will take YEARS and in the mean time, the harm continues, and culture coalesces around the harmful use cases. Every day broken software remains in the wild, it is more difficult to fix due to dependencies developing on top of the bugs, which then shift the culture, which then becomes the argument not to fix them in the first place. We're seeing this now. Pick your favorite scammer/spammer: they all make this argument. In short, we can't have any fixes that take too long because then all the opponents will just argue, with some justification, "but that's just what bitcoin is now." So instead we do something SIMPLE that can be done with reasonable quickness, at which point it's criticized by people for being too simple and too quick... I still think you're out of your element here, and because of your intelligence, you are over-estimating your ability to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Lyn Alden@LynAldenContact

Hard to say. For this fork, I’d have to agree that something is indeed killing me by a thousand cuts, rather than just a background nuisance held in check by the block size limit and fee market. Defining the scale of the problem, in other words. Second I’d have to see what methods of fighting back actually work without breaking much, and weigh those methods relative to my perception of the threat (existential or nuisance or somewhere in between). Can it solve the problem or just move it somewhere else? I’d make sure I’m not putting effort into something that is more performative than functional. And what commitment am I getting into? Can one fork mostly solve the issue, or am I starting a never-ending whack-a-mole process against the problem, while the problem evolves around my attempts, and each attempt comes with potential technical trade-offs such as potentially affecting the prospects of LN Symmetry (a monetary improvement) and so forth? And *precisely* how small do I want to make the spam bucket that doesn’t contribute much to UTXO bloat (op return) while preserving the other spam methods that do? Who knows- the burden of evidence and specifics are on the proponents. Third I’d make sure not to damage the movement with sensationalist marketing. Self-appointed main characters don’t last long in the bitcoin space. “Pass my fork or Bitcoin dies” is unlikely to win, and may set back the movement. The sensationalist marketing and scale of infighting is what led a podcast host to ask me about it, for me to answer, for others to respond to me, and for me to respond to them with a more public position against this specific fork at this specific time. I’d have otherwise remained publicly indifferent at this time (since it’s a young fork and doesn’t mitigate a whole lot). Wasn’t it @giacomozucco who said that the knots movement was growing until this fork killed it, (his words, not mine)? Something like that. You know how many forks are looking to solve problems in bitcoin and have been seeking consensus for years? Welcome to the party. Fourth, I’d weigh it against other development considerations in terms of time-resources spent. How does this compare to making Lightning better via LN Symmetry? How does this compare to preventing some potentially serious exploits via Consensus Cleanup? Etc. Fifth I’d weigh it against other threats. How about governments trying to ID-verify everything at the operating system level? The attack on net privacy is about 100x a bigger concern to me than this. It’s a gift for them to have half the bitcoin space fighting over a contentious fork that just mildly rearranges the buckets for where spam goes (and for which some aspects I might even be in favor of) rather than defending against all the ways that Bitcoin’s privacy and usability can and is being attacked. I want to see a flourishing ecosystem of coinjoins, smooth lightning UX, Chaumian ecash, Ark, and whatever else people can build to improvement payments and route around censorship and ubiquitous surveillance. Best thing an enemy can do is get you to focus on paper cuts while they’re swinging their machete.

English
2
4
37
1.2K
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110
ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110@ScarcityMan·
Except it isn't. It clearly ignores that buckets matter, difficulty matters, and level of official sanction matters. These are factors even a child can understand, but are being left out for some reason. Arguing over and over again that squares aren't circles is pretty tiring... But I won't stop.
English
1
0
0
5