raindogdance

Deactivated my account and apparently those get deleted completely after 30 days. Good to know. Back here to check on the bitcoin circus, and to keep my handle for nostalgic reasons. Restarting from zero, let's go!

@BTC_for_Freedom @saylor What about v31?

What is your stance, @saylor? It would be good for the community to know. V29, V30, Knots, or BIP-110?

The last pop up you see before the webpage asks you for every other detail of your personally identifiable information

@timpastoor What plane did you write about?

Everyone knows. I even wrote him a letter about a plane once. He responded within a week or so. True gent.

v30 killed bitcoin. This is the final final blow.

@TronMonGone Excellent! I hope these companies will have the guts to stay on the clean side of bitcoin if there's a chain split 💪

I don't know if someone has already done this, but I'd like to start a list of businesses that support BIP 110. The main reason is so like minded people can support each other's businesses. Please feel free to add companies in the replies: 256heat.com Covebitcoinwallet.com Bitcoinartmagazine.com parman.org/parmanodl

@realityblob @LukeDashjr > I wouldn’t be surprised to learn @LukeDashjr was hacked intentionally. As opposed to hacked accidentally?

Now that we know Core is rotten, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn @LukeDashjr was hacked intentionally.

@BitcoinMotorist Wow, if just the v31 release candidate caused the drop, imagine what the actual release will bring... Might as well just go all in on a bitcoin short just before day of the release

The nodes don't like being used as dumb data storage but the market hates it too. Miners probably hate it too if they understand the difference between nominal revenue and real revenue. Run BIP110 or lose your money

@zndtoshi > who decides what is Bitcoin? I do 🙋‍♂️

Ask yourself who decides what is Bitcoin? - A small number of people in spite of opposition of many others. - 90% of community agreeing with a change because Bitcoin is consensus of the least common denominator of things we agree with.

@TheStalwart @MuyaoShen What's yours, Joe?

@MuyaoShen What’s your theory?

look, my non-crypto friends are texting me about it again 🥹 it’s back!

@timpastoor What we wanted: automatisation What we got: autismisation

I knew this would come in handy.

@Anton__BTC @oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward I guess you are confirming the point I am trying to make?

@raindogdance @oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward Running BIP110.

my haters are at all an time high. must be doing something right!

@Anton__BTC @oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward > Claiming that Bitcoin is open source or that anybody can contribute to default client, is lying by omission. You are saying bitcoin is not open source? 🤔

@raindogdance @oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward Raindogance... Only a few Core maintainers have merging rights for the default node client. Default settings for default client matter. Claiming that Bitcoin is open source or that anybody can contribute to default client, is lying by omission.

@oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward @Anton__BTC I reject this framing because I don't think the users are as powerless as you seem to suggest. Bitcoin is built on DIY ethos. Users can run the code that they want to run and nobody can deny this from them (be it Core or whoever else).

@raindogdance @Pledditor @HODLingOnward @Anton__BTC I'm not gonna repeat myself again. You seem confused because you keep leaving out an important part of the quote, which misrespresents what I'm saying. There you go: > Core project has been denying [...] to their users You welcome.

@oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward @Anton__BTC > Core project has been denying You, me, and anyone else can use and change their code freely, Core doesn't have the power to deny anything. Their "power" is just whatever you yourself project on them; it is not real. Do whatever you wish with the code, that's the whole point.

There is zero misunderstanding there. The Core project has been denying config options and stripping away existing configs _from their users_. This is a simple fact that can be proven by pointing at specific PRs that were rejected (for the first case) or merged (for the second). Obviously the way this resolves in practice is that their users that care about this switch to Knots or simply stop updating the software forever, which makes them _former_ Core users. It's also obvious that the Core dev team would've rather retained the nearly 100% market share their client used to enjoy before 2024, since a lot of the decisions they've been making are intended to make all nodes the same. So the (failed) intent to remove these capabilities is implicitly there.

@oomahq @Pledditor @HODLingOnward @Anton__BTC > Core has been denying Core has no power to deny or allow anything, it's just open source code that anyone can change, or use (or not use) as they like. Making Core to be some sort of authority that can deny something is one of the main misunderstandings in the whole debate imo

Xitter doesn't make it easy to see this but it took me 3-4 months to warm up to BIP-110. Initially I thought self-expiring consensus rules implied a future hard-fork (it doesn't), I didn't see the point of making the fork temporary (I do now, somewhat) and I thought it confiscated coins (it doesn't). On top of that I have been arguing for years that spam and griefing attacks are best addressed with mempool policy (and I still believe this as I said above). This SF feels meh because the only thing that really accomplishes in itself is empowering Bitcoin users to tell the Core dev team that they fucked up (in the words of the BIP "refocuses priorities on improving Bitcoin as money"). But I think the project has strayed so far from the right path that this is worth it at this point (again, because users never had other places to run to). I agree that minimizing uncertainty is good, but in my opinion a grasroots effort like BIP-110 minimizes that uncertainty in the long term while the current path that Core is in maximizes it. Regarding arbitrary data onchain my personal position is that I will run an archival full node for the benefit of everyone no matter what gets into the blockchain. Still it shouldn't trigger anyone to acknowledge that every year people are sent to prison for holding and distributing certain kinds of data. Therefore it makes sense for devs to give noderunners as many tools as possible to resist large data embedding, not make large data embedding an official use case (since Core v30). Regardless of legal consequences embracing these alt uses cases also brings reputational costs that hurt all users and especially miners (hashers are much more sensitive to fiat valuation than to fee income). It's just a no-brainer, and it also used to be a no-brainer to ~everyone else (there's plenty of pre-2023 anti-spam quotes to choose from most prominent OGs, starting with the one in my banner). Finally, what I hope that will happen if the network succeeds in activating BIP-110 is that a subset of devs will raise to the task of serving node runners again (remember, they would have just strongly demonstrated their preferences by activating BIP-110) by giving them the tools (policy) that Core has been denying and stripping away from them since 2023, and I hope that the client they'll work on will be perceived as the new reference implementation. After the first hit attackers will of course reorganize and adjust their spam, but I believe that thanks to DATUM, the BitAxe and hashrate markets we're just entering the era of the petahash-scale home miner and ending that of the FPPS pool cartel. Therefore in the mid term tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of toxic maximalists will control a large chunk of the total hashrate, and it will be difficult to bypass mempool policies at scale again. By that time I also hope that the mempool policy approach of that hypothetical reference implementation has reverted back to a whitelist instead of the current blacklist so we don't even need to think about spammers. Thank you for the kind words and the civil engagement.

@flaming_hodl Wow, probably that's why the price went up recently!

Knots Vs V30 adoption 54% to 46%.

nodes are the rulers of bitcoin but also, they're slaves to open source developers and are largely incapable of changing the open source code to their choosing

@Arthur_van_Pelt @BitMEXResearch @KylePLeBlanc > When a chain with BIP110 activated does not obtain majority consensus with the whole Bitcoin infra, it will be happily abandoned. Why would you abandon it? Is staying in consensus with the spammers really worth it?

@BitMEXResearch @KylePLeBlanc You clearly do not understand the working of the activation (or not) of BIP110. When a chain with BIP110 activated does not obtain majority consensus with the whole Bitcoin infra, it will be happily abandoned. Lessons learned, and we try again with a new BIP.

BIP110 failing to activate is not an embarrassment. Another BIP will replace it, till we succeed. In 2015-2017 it took 9 failed BIPs before Shaolinfry's BIP helped to activate Segwit and kick the big blockers out. Your "shitting" is very helpful. Thank you.

@DasFiesel @TomerStrolight #4543" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4540…

@DasFiesel @TomerStrolight Eh I don't know, maybe.. but for example Pieter Wuille was already talking about the separation of pruned nodes and archival nodes all the way back in 2012, way before Ethereum was even a twinkle in Vitaliks eyes

Pruned nodes seem to be a small minority of nodes, while full nodes are an overwhelming majority. Focus should be on making full nodes easier and more cost effective to run rather than catering to pruned nodes. Full nodes are more robust anyways and much better for decentralization.