Sabitlenmiş Tweet
I am pleased to announce v0.3 of the official BIP-110 activation client (link below).
This version contains some important bug fixes, so all users should update before activation occurs (still at least some weeks away).
English
Dathon Ohm / BIP-110
2.8K posts
Dathon Ohm / BIP-110
@dathon_ohm
https://t.co/jl2CVJRdWd https://t.co/AJZfgMRmC1
Katılım Kasım 2025
103 Takip Edilen2K Takipçiler
@OtherBarryBTC @AnalysisFeral Restrictions in policy and consensus are concrete enforcement actions, even if temporary, your failure to acknowledge them as such notwithstanding. Again, this was the winning strategy last time. It makes sense to try it again.
English
@dathon_ohm @AnalysisFeral That’s not an answer.
If it’s consensus, define the objective rule, which you’ve already said won’t exist before the soft fork expires.
If it’s policy, it’s optional and bypassable.
English
Disabling future upgrades, to prevent spam from the past and and potential future spam...
Dathon Ohm / BIP-110@dathon_ohm
@CatoTheElder17 @GaudreauJordan @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor This is false. BIP-110 disables upgrade hooks, meaning that any future upgrades to Bitcoin would need to be designed as hardforks.
English
@CatoTheElder17 If you do not like this plan, then please feel free to propose something different. My focus is on activating BIP-110, nothing more.
English
@CatoTheElder17 But if this is not sufficient, we will now have the option to instate a temporary softfork again, with even stricter rules. So it seems likely that just the first softfork will be sufficient.
English
Once BIP-110 activates, then what? We need a plan:
- Perpetual annual “soft forks as a service” are unacceptable.
- Letting it expire would just re-enable abuse from bad actors.
That only leaves making BIP-110 permanent “as is”, or in an improved form.
Please discuss!
English
@CatoTheElder17 Okay, I am open to hearing your suggestions.
English
@dathon_ohm My suggestion would be to have a “follow through BIP” ready to go to make most of the BIP-110 changes permanent immediately upon BIP-110 expiration. We would have the upper hand, and 12 months to coordinate it and prove no damage from BIP-110.
English
@OtherBarryBTC @AnalysisFeral Restrictions in policy and/or consensus.
English
@dathon_ohm @AnalysisFeral So “concrete enforcement” means what?
English
@OtherBarryBTC @AnalysisFeral The winning strategy is social pressure + concrete enforcement action to back up the social pressure. That is what worked last time, and that is what will work this time.
English
@dathon_ohm @AnalysisFeral So the “solution” is social pressure + voluntary policy?
If that’s sufficient, you don’t need BIP110.
If it isn’t, then nothing was actually solved, just temporarily disrupted.
English
@CatoTheElder17 @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor Then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. We have plenty of options for a response in any contingency.
English
@dathon_ohm @CaminaDrummer4 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor I wish I had that confidence. All the v30 nodes will stay regardless of Core’s damage, and Core will retain much of the old version nodes bc of inertia.
As soon as the BIP expires Core will be maximally permissive again.
And then we have to do this again.
English
@CatoTheElder17 BIP-110 is not a "continual softfork strategy". It is a one softfork strategy.
You have not suggested a better strategy.
English
@dathon_ohm I find the continual soft fork strategy not optimal, it makes the rules of the game unpredictable for spammers but also for regular honest participants.
And we can’t rely on Core to be honest and take the loss. They likely will act maximally permissive before and after the BIP.
English
@Kurtis_NZ The Motivation section is fairly clear. Let me know if you have suggestions for improving the wording: #motivation" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/bitcoin/bips/b…
English
@Kurtis_NZ Two ways: by raising risks on node operators, discouraging them from participating, and by crowding out payments, eventually redefining Bitcoin as a file-sharing network (which also discourages participation).
This is already explained in the BIP. I am wondering if you read it.
English
Updated chain growth vs projected storage improvement chart using more historic input data and better modelling. #bitcoin won't die.
Worst that will happen is near term people will have to upgrade their node hardware sooner than they hoped.
English
@OtherBarryBTC @AnalysisFeral Correct. Spammers are highly sensitive to antagonism from the Bitcoin community. Nothing will "collapse" after one year. The precedent will have been set, which is sufficient to incentivize popular node implementations to filter spam in policy, which is where it should be done.
English
@dathon_ohm @AnalysisFeral So it’s an existential, system-level threat… but also collapses after a 1-year timeout?
English
@CatoTheElder17 And spammers have always had funding. Today's spammers are different only in degree, not in kind. That is why our response is proportionally larger this time.
English
@CatoTheElder17 I disagree. Spam is a constantly evolving threat. If we reveal our strategy too early, spammers will simply figure out how to counter it. It is sufficient to have plenty of options at our disposal for all contigencies, which we certainly do.
English
@OtherBarryBTC @MaximaFreiman @Darrigel This is a very shallow analysis. The bulk of UTXO growth over the past few years has been from data storage schemes becoming popular.
English
@MaximaFreiman @Darrigel @dathon_ohm UTXO bloat ≠ data bloat.
The UTXO set tracks unspent outputs. Most “arbitrary data” (witness, OP_RETURN) isn’t even in it.
If you’re worried about UTXO growth, that’s a dust/output issue, not a “data vs payments” issue.
English
"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?
English
@CaminaDrummer4 @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor If that is true, then they will rapidly lose market share after BIP-110 activates, because such failing to filter data spam in policy will be an explicit attack.
English
@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor I don’t think they consider it painful, or put another way they don’t care about damage to Bitcoin.
English
@CaminaDrummer4 @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor No, the vast majority of spam does not route around standardness rules. Core is relaxing standardness rules in anticipation of what they believe attackers will do in the future, or failing to tighten standardness rules to filter new forms of spam.
English
@dathon_ohm @CatoTheElder17 @BitcoinBombadil @MarkOfBitcoin @AnalysisFeral @hodlonaut @cguida6 @adam3us @Pledditor That’s a non-sequitur. It does evolve and it can be mitigated in standardness rules and those rules can over time migrate to consensus. I’m not saying consensus is a panacea, but clearly the attackers are routing around standardness so it needs to be enforced somewhere.
English