Owen

We have reached 15% BIP110 penetration. The first 15% are always the hardest. So proud of all the pleps out there spinning up their nodes.

(bip110.rip)

it will then take about another year to get to the next difficulty retarget. Here's a quick quiz for the BIP110ers: how long will it take for the "1 year" temporary period to elapse?

Congrats BIP110ers, seriously.

@flaming_hodl I like that you are thinking this through. Most seem incapable. There is an certainly a financial incentive to signal during mandatory period, even if you don't like it.

If I was a miner that believes BIP-110 would fail, I would still signal in the mandatory period. Why? Because you can always remove your signal before enforcement but you can't get block rewards back that get reorged.

@Conza @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut and I never said I would maybe accept the fork. I said: "I might support a fork." That was in response to your question if I would ever in principle support a soft fork.

@Conza @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut so you don't support the UASF?

It's so disappointing seeing so many Aussie bitcoiners on the BIP110 suicide train. Reminds me of the Craig Wright is Satoshi days. Surrounded by idiots! @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @Conza

@Conza @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut what did you mean by this: "Just rolling with MASF activation, not UASF."

As usual, you ignore genuine questions/discussion that requires you defending your position i.e. define your terms 'coercive' etc etc. avoiding at all costs any Socratic exchange by bowing out with red herrings. Textbook 🚩's Failure to find the truth is perhaps an intellectual defeat, but failure to look for the truth is an intellectual surrender. — Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski

@knutsvanholm @ToneVays >It's temporary to make sure it doesn't close any doors that shouldn't have been closed oh what - in that event we just have to wait one year for bitcoin to work again?

It's temporary to make sure it doesn't close any doors that shouldn't have been closed. Taproot had consensus, and would probably have been good if people actually used it for it's stated purposes. However, >99,9 of the OP_IFs on-chain today aren't, and weren't even ever intended to be executable, so something clearly has to be done about that. And I personally have no idea why any bitcoiner would ever need more than a 40 bytes-sized OP_RETURN field ever, since you can fit a hash of anything into that. BIP-110 is a tiny temporary tightening of the rules to send a clear signal to all the scammers that: 1) Bitcoin is money 2) You're not, and will never be, welcome here 3) We can and will work against you and make your lives harder 4) Bitcoin's users make the rules, not you Etc. etc. Also, the worst thing that can even theretically happen to honest bitcoin users is that they'll be forced to hodl for a year (and it takes quite a lot of skill to put yourself in that position). I have no idea why anyone except the scammers themselves would have anything against it 🤷‍♂️

All nodes matter.

This is the best BIP110 post yet. Come on BCash - now could be your time to shine! 😂

@w_s_bitcoin @dotkrueger @MayaPar25 yeah it's a thrilling read. They're so proud of their devious activation method. Wow so clever.

@dotkrueger @MayaPar25 At least visit their site for the cliff notes. bip110.org

The first rule of BIP-110 is: read BIP-110

@Conza @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut As usual your tweet is almost unintelligible.. but I think you mean you support the MASF, but not the UASF, is that right?

@beefbikesbtc @parman_the @bronzefozzz @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @hodlonaut Well aware (of your questions about this). And obviously. Just rolling with MASF activation, not UASF. Thanks for playing. Re: opposite side of x.com/giacomozucco/s…

@matteopelleg no they wouldn't. BIP110ers will never be placated. They want to crash and burn.

core devs could end this in 5 minutes by announcing that they’re going to change OP_RETURN default back to 80bytes

@ToneVays sounds like consensus to me🤡

Hollow shit! Kratter is losing his mind 🤯 - He is threatening mining pools - He is threatening a crash of Bitcoin price - He is threatening a chain split This video is a perfect example why Bip110 will fail & NO ONE is going to pay attention to him or Luke or Mechanic in 30 Days

@jamesviggy thanks yep I've upgraded my understanding of the definition of activation. In this context it means activate on the heaviest chain👍

@beefbikesbtc Bitcoin is defined as the chain with the most cumulative proof-of-work, so in the situation where BIP110 activates and forks off the market resolves to no.

Will Bitcoin activate BIP110? Prediction market odds👇 🔴 NO: Trading @ ~0.87 ➡️ Pays 1.00 if right (+15% return) 🟢 YES: Trading @ ~0.13 ➡️ Pays 1.00 if right (+769% return) What do you think is most likely to happen? What's the better reward for the risk taken?

@stephanlivera @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @Conza on that note I'm logging off - thank you Stephan.

@beefbikesbtc @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @Conza Spam derangement and fake narratives have taken hold of some. But remember, X is not real life.

@Conza @MichaelDunwort1 @bronzefozzz @parman_the @ausbtcclub no that's not all - Michael asked what I thought was dangerous.

@beefbikesbtc @MichaelDunwort1 @bronzefozzz @parman_the @ausbtcclub So you have no problem with anything else - just activation method and potential consequences thereof? x.com/oomahq/status/…

@Conza @bronzefozzz @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 @dathon_ohm mitigation maybe, not worth the risks. I might support a fork. Everyone considers Luke the leader. (I like how you knew who I meant - compromised or lunatic - assume you agree then). You didn't answer about the activation method - devious and coercive. Also you talk in riddles.

Based on what? Again with the dumb AF nirvana fallacy. It's called mitigation: blockspaceweekly.substack.com/p/issue-8-bip-… , what don't you get? So you'd in principle would never support a soft fork, that did not have "consensus" (you define it! prior to activation?) @dathon_ohm wrote the BIP. Your LDS is showing. No, you're an actual farking liar - first time you've tried to make an argument.

@CaminaDrummer4 @Conza @bronzefozzz @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 Hello bot.

@beefbikesbtc @Conza @bronzefozzz @parman_the @ausbtcclub @MichaelDunwort1 Core fucked up and after a period of discussion this BIP was made. It’s a good BIP, if it weren’t you could find a problem with it honestly— but you haven’t ever even mentioned anything specific it does and why that’s bad. Did you even read it, bro?