☍ TotalɃuzzKit

@SteveSimple It is unprincipled and shows utter lack of confidence.

@TotalBuzzKit I like the temporary nature and I think it should be considered for all future soft forks. I think if taproot op_if we’re have been introduced as temporary, even Core devs would be for letting it expire

It’s such a loser take to ask people to bet on the outcome of BIP-110. Betting is what non-athletes do. You’re in the stands speculating. We’re on the field with the ball.

@DavidGardnerUK @adam3us @joshatoshi Meaningless comment. Core is not a single person with an expectation of "behavior".

@adam3us @joshatoshi Disaster for core and plebs. No one wins. Why didn’t core behave.

If you love a default OP_RETURN of 100,000 bytes, just wait until Core changes it again to 1MB, 1GB, or removes the limit entirely. It’s only a matter of time really.

@RepJackKimble Wen OnlyFans sir? As a non-US national I can't donate to your next reelection campaign but if you have a personal OnlyFans account I can send money there.

Now on Substack! open.substack.com/pub/representa…

@MrJamesMay And you have tried doing it on other media as well.

I think you’ll find that was me.

@w_s_bitcoin @ausbtcclub I hear Bitcoin is something that has caused an inordinately large amount of boating accidents. So... something like an iceberg?

@ausbtcclub What’s Bitcoin? Never heard of it.

@YieldForceOne @dotkrueger Then treat it like money. Transact, pay fees, price out the spammers. The rest is just LARPing.

@dotkrueger There are thousands of other crap chains to spam. If we want $BTC to be money, we need to treat it like money. Yes on 110.

34% of the entire Bitcoin block space is being used for worthless "inscriptions". Houston, we have a problem. wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com

@c_hashreview @AskerAesir No part of BIP110 frightens me because it will not activate. I object to it in principle, because it moves local policy into consensus and introduces incompatible changes in functionality, all on shaky ground. And also because LukeDashJr is insane.

@TotalBuzzKit @AskerAesir So in conclusion, to keep it simple. What exactly do you want Bitcoin to do that BIP110 wont allow you to do? I don’t mean a particular fringe case were you need more than 128 separate spending conditions, I mean what part of BIP110 frightens you the most?

Let me spell it out again: 1. BIP110 activates; 2. A non-compliant block is mined; 3. Two or three BIP110 blocks get mined in a row; 4. The legacy chain is wiped out; 5. SPAMMERS RUGGED 🏴‍☠️ TICK TOCK NEXT BLOCK

@theonevortex @Einya_Archer @adam3us @hodlonaut @saylor "for its finality..." And pseudonimity. And permissionlessness. Myoptic Bitcoin Whitepaper thumpers never figured out that part :D To this day, some people can't accept the fact that other folks can spend money on truly dumb stuff (hence the 'non-monetary spam' hysteria.

@Einya_Archer @adam3us @hodlonaut @saylor Cash was referenced in the white paper for its finality, obviously it's digital so it can't be actual cash and it has 10 min block times so obviously it wasn't meant to be as instant as cash (though thanks to LN that usecase now works perfectly well).

There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam. BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter. $BTC

@c_hashreview @AskerAesir "Thats why segwit nodes needed to be the majority of nodes" This was the *the entire point* of making sure miners support SegWit. Nobody, at no point in time, was able to spend another person's SW transaction. This is what made the "anyone can spend" claim fully idiotic.

@TotalBuzzKit @AskerAesir Sorry, but segwit tx were “anyone can spend” txs. Thats literally what chaincode labs & their affiliates taught me when attending many Bitcoin dev cohorts. Thats why segwit nodes needed to be the majority of nodes, ie to mitigate that being a problem.

@c_hashreview @AskerAesir I am teaching you a lesson that what you want is not always what you get.

@TotalBuzzKit @AskerAesir I did notice your lack of reciprocation with the likes by the way…Thats up to you.

@c_hashreview @AskerAesir There is no exploit. This is the same kind of filthy propaganda like the claim that SegWit transactions were "anyone can spend" and that RBF meant double spending. Total gibberish.

@TotalBuzzKit @AskerAesir So if anything, it is brining Bitcoin back in line (or at least attempting to) to what it was before the exploit was discovered. Plus, its not the first time limits were placed on consensus, its happened many times before. This is not to suggest bip110 is the silver bullet btw.

@c_hashreview @AskerAesir BIP148 signalled readiness and willingness to upgrade the network. There were substantial improvements from adopting SegWit. BIP110 does the opposite. It cripples & dismantles infrastructure in the pursuit of a solution to an unsolvable (by its own supporters' admission) problem

@AskerAesir @TotalBuzzKit That’s what I was taught about the segwit fork. We were told that node runners taught miners that they were employees of the network. A network that belongs to node runners. To now suggest that because <2% of miners signal, therefore who cares, seems to ignore that above.

@bitcoindudebro Yup. Knotzis are betting on a 3-legged dog in a horse race and don't even seem to know it.

@TotalBuzzKit The idea here seems to be an even race at each new block. But 110 doesn't count the OG blocks in its valid chain. So I think this very quickly turns into a fork.

The possibilities as I see them: 1. BIP110 nodes get stranded on a slow fork or stale tip 2. BIP110 capitulates before enforcement height 961,632 ? 3. BIP110 miraculously achieves majority hashrate and becomes the heaviest chain with no split ?? What am I missing?

@NealFlesher @ToneVays Insane gibberish. Muted.

@TotalBuzzKit @ToneVays who the fuck are you to enforce limits on anyone!? tyrannical censorship! think of all the transactions and data people would love to pay a miner to put on chain but they can’t becuse you are running software that censors them you are lost man, you have to get over the emotion

Still one of my favorite Memes of the Bip110 upcoming Fork Off... If there are better ones, would be great to have a laugh this weekend!

@NealFlesher @ToneVays I have read more than the BIP. I fully stand to my own standard and don't fight imaginary spam monsters. I leave you to your 'logic'

@TotalBuzzKit @ToneVays i read the BIP, do my own thinking, not sure what what has to do with anything here. your critique to my argument applies equally to your own action right now on your node. that’s why it’s a performative contradiction. you cannot stand to your own standard

@NealFlesher @ToneVays Please sync notes with your Pope because I am getting really confused with your "logic" claims and his stance.

@TotalBuzzKit @ToneVays then what’s ur objection again? if it doesn’t matter that entire “performative contradiction” thing again. isn’t logic a bitch?

@CypherSafe @adam3us @Ben_deWaal Apparently I gave it a lot more thought than you ever did :D

@TotalBuzzKit @adam3us @Ben_deWaal What the heck are you talking about? Did you read an entire hidden novel in my comment?

On the filter fork topic. I don't usually have time, but this morning listened to one of the twitter spaces from earlier in the week, with some well meaning relative bitcoin newcomers, that humanized them, and their concerns and thoughts for why they thought that made it logical to support 110. My feeling after listening, is if these are the people with #110 in their handles, I'm sad to see them about to fork off and get disillusioned without understanding why bitcoin rejected 110 robustly. So here's a more empathetic, constructive higher level version of explaining why not. I hope it's high-level and first-principles enough that everyone can follow. They seem to want to understand what makes people tick, and are suspicious of intent. So, if someone asked me why is Bitcoin important and what is it, I'd say my (personal) mission and hope for bitcoin is to build the cypherpunk future, that "Snow Crash" was a blueprint, and work backwards from there. Bitcoin I hope leads to fully free markets via bearer unseizable, hard mathematically dependable money. Not everyone is comfortable with that level of freedom, but that's my view. And at this point, I believe that surprisingly, even now many governments have come to understand and value bitcoin's gold-like mathematical assurance, a positive development. Others may have milder views than myself, but still like hard censorship resistant money. Because of motive suspicion, if it's not obvious: I hate spam with a passion, that's how I came to design hashcash while researching decentralized bearer money with others, and running nodes in privacy related cypherpunk p2p networks nearly three decades ago. People seem upset about the default op return policy change in bitcoin. I will just assert, there are extremely robust and simple reasons for bitcoin changing default relay policy, and most just didn't do their research, so don't know what those are, or maybe not technical enough to fully understand though there have been 1000s of posts trying to explain in various simplified ways. So that lack of understanding lends itself to shared build-up of false narratives. So here's my back-to-basics higher level explanation. The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications a: side effect of decentralization is that you can't impose your views on others. The very decentralization mechanism that helps that, is working against what BIP 110 wants, which at it's most basic is a quest to police other people. I understand supporters don't see their intent like that, but introspect deeper. You can modify your software, but not anyone else's. Another critical and incredibly robust technical bitcoin immune system is bitcoin can't have people who don't understand technology basics insist on eroding security, decentralization robustness and core properties. That would end badly, fast, and so people will fight you on that. So the message is Bitcoin respectfully says "no" to what you want. Sorry, and bitcoiners do genuinely understand and empathize that you mean well, have high level thoughts that make emotional sense, and articulate sensible bitcoin-defensive high level ideas, but they are not grounded and without you seeing it, the way you propose to achieve your ideas, hard-conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money. My advice is to listen to more experienced people who understand the system and why it works the way it does, to whatever detail you want to understand the grounded reasons for why this is the implication of decentralization and cypherpunk money. I guarantee you the developer and protocol ecosystem shares and exceeds your views on bearer hard money (and dislike of spam). You may not agree with individual developers choices, views, way of expressing themselves etc, BUT you also need to understand the IETF-like decentralized technical consensus process creates a protective change resistance, that is highly effective at protecting bitcoin mission. The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus. And the many highly technical mainline developers' cypherpunk mission mindsets are probably far more determined than you can even handle on clarity of understanding and views about freedoms on permissionless networks, as many of you are probably still subconsciously inured by the matrix, where they have transcended that, and grew up immersed in it decades ago. They think natively in this space, while you are just grappling with the surface. Many wont have internalized or have the experience to know how this internet physics works, where there is no policeman, no policy authority, just mathematics, free market and hard money. That has implications for your views also, unfortunately. Now the tough pill, which is unfortunately true: If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But bitcoin won't be joining it. (With respect and no sleight intended.) Please rejoin bitcoin now, or later if you're not convinced and need to experience 110 forking off and fizzling for yourself to start that journey of introspecting and learning. It would be sad if bitcoin lost people disillusioned due to simple lack of understanding of what's going on there, we're all trying to defend bitcoin and keep it on mission. Including btw the 110 technical promoters, just they wandered off plot somehow. Join the cypherpunks on bitcoin, come cypherpunk summer🌞 in a few weeks.

@NealFlesher @ToneVays Yup, which is what makes it pointless.

@TotalBuzzKit @ToneVays 110 still allows arb data 😂 just smaller chunks “if it fits, it ships”

@NealFlesher @ToneVays Nah, I am done with your sophistry.

@TotalBuzzKit @ToneVays if an argument is not logically valid, it cannot be sound. start there