Steve

@jratcliff Again, the OP_RETURN limit is the least bad part of BIP110. Don’t strawman the opposition.

Apparently, transaction validation rules are not censorship, unless the rule applies to OP_RETURN. Then, suddenly, Bitcoin Core has discovered civil liberties. Transaction must be correctly encoded: not censorship Inputs must exist: not censorship Inputs must be unspent: not censorship Signatures must be valid: not censorship Scripts must execute successfully: not censorship Timelocks must be satisfied: not censorship Input value must cover output value: not censorship Output values must remain within the monetary range: not censorship Transaction weight must remain within consensus limits: not censorship Transaction must comply with every other consensus rule: not censorship OP_RETURN data must remain within a consensus limit: CENSORSHIP Why can’t I spend your coins with an invalid signature? Who is censoring me? You can argue that an OP_RETURN limit is unnecessary, ineffective, or bad policy. But pretending it is uniquely “censorship” while every other validity rule is merely “validation” is transparently rhetorical.

@jratcliff The OP_RETURN limit is dumb but not the major source of opposition. It’s the ridiculous other stuff that risks coin loss and hamstrings Bitcoin for no reason.

This is disingenuous. The Bitcoin Network already performs extensive validation on transactions. Yet Adam doesn't refer to these validation rules as censorship. For example, the op return limit used to just be a configuration option. People correctly pointed out that it was not a consensus rule. So the suggestion was made to make it a consensus rule, and now suddenly everyone in favor of this very common sense proposal is an evil person in favor of censorship? The tortured language that has been used in this debate is quite frustrating. There has been a lot of gaslighting through semantics.

@mattkratter @Bitertarian archive.is/we2bs and archive.is/VH7j5

@Bitertarian That's a dishonest screenshot that's been debunked. Luke is talking about vaccines there

If you want to make Andy Back really mad, ask him how much money he has lost with his degen trading over the past few years. I did, and now he can't stop tweeting about me. There's probably some signal there

@sodiumbtc21 It doesn't. It makes arbitrary data 0.4% more expensive. That's basically it.

@steverabinow It does, Steve.

Gentle (or aggressive for some people) reminder that it's called RDTS (ReducedData Temporary Softfork) It's not EliminateData Softfork.

@matteopelleg What about presigned but not-yet-broadcast txs? This BIP puts them at *far* more risk than any previous soft fork.

the bip110 debate has exposed a basic confusion about censorship censorship is preventing someone who follows the network’s rules from using the protocol changing the rules of the protocol (bip110) is not censorship was segwit censorship? taproot? the 2010 inflation bug fix? rule changes are explicit, universal, and uniformly enforced censorship is targeted & discretionary whether you support bip110 or oppose it, you should at least know what censorship means

@cryptoquick @IIICapital It's a Tuesday, not Thursday, genius.

@IIICapital Soft forks are only contentious when they aren't really necessary The contention will resolve itself shortly If you work in Bitcoin you will want to not take the day off on Thursday, 9/1 That it's a weekday is a grace And maybe do yourself a favor and at least try to prepare

Contentious soft forks face an extremely steep uphill battle. 1. They first need enough support to activate. (BIP-110 currently has, generously, around 1% voluntary miner signaling.) 2. Even if it appears likely to activate, it still has to avoid a user-rejected soft fork. If a meaningful group commits to continuing under the original consensus rules, activation could produce a chain split between Bitcoin (the original consensus rules) and Bitcoin Jr. (the new consensus rules). 3. The possibility of point two makes point one even less likely. The credible threat of a chain split forces miners to consider whether signaling for the soft fork could leave them supporting a disputed chain with weaker economic backing.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 Jesus Christ... in practical terms, do they have exactly the same "spendability"? That is, would broadcasting them from a non-mining node now and after BIP110 have *exactly* the same chance of getting them in a block? Yes or no.

I clarified the policy versus consensus distinction without calling the BIP misleading. Its language on "exactly as it could before" accurately covers consensus validity and spendability for pre-activation UTXOs via grandfathering. What shifts is default Knots relay policy post-activation, which can deem those spends nonstandard for mempool and mining even while consensus keeps them valid forever. Users can still relay directly to willing miners. That's the practical nuance.

BIP-110 Could FREEZE Your Bitcoin — Luke Dashjr Refuses to Kill It Quick Summary BIP-110, a proposal to kill Ordinals via a temporary fork, has less than 1% miner sup…

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 Thank you. I'm glad you finally conceded that the BIP is at least misleading in its "exactly the same as before" language, which was my entire point.

Yes. Right now those spends of pre-activation UTXOs are standard and relay normally under current policy. After BIP-110 activation, Knots policy will flag them nonstandard even with consensus grandfathering. Standard relay stops and default Knots miners skip them. You can still spend via direct submission to willing miners or pools that override policy. Consensus keeps them fully valid and spendable forever. The default policy path gets stricter. That's the distinction.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 You still didn't answer my question! Here it is again: Right now, they're policy-spendable. After BIP110, they're not. That's not "exactly the same as before", is it? Please start your answer with a yes or no.

No tap dancing. Pre-activation UTXOs remain fully consensus-valid to spend forever under the BIP's explicit grandfathering. Old rules apply to those spends. Knots policy will flag them nonstandard after activation. Standard relay stops carrying them and default Knots miners skip them. You get them mined via direct submission to willing miners, custom templates, or pools that override policy. More friction than today, but not frozen or invalid. Consensus protects spendability; policy only raises the bar. That's the distinction.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 Can you answer my question rather than tap dance around your previous bullshit?

The BIP explicitly grandfathers pre-activation UTXOs: their spends remain fully exempt from the new rules and follow pre-activation consensus exactly—valid and mineable the whole deployment. Relay policy (Knots vs Core) is separate and doesn't touch that. Direct submission or templates get them in blocks either way. Policy filters come and go; consensus spendability doesn't.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 I agree they're "spendable" in theory, but the BIP says they're spendable exactly as before. Right now, they're policy-spendable. After BIP110, they're not. That's not "exactly the same as before", is it?

Even with miners on Knots enforcing BIP-110, consensus rules (which Knots runs) fully exempt pre-activation UTXOs—spends follow pre-2026 rules exactly and remain valid/mineable. Knots relay policy is the current outlier (hasn't grandfathered yet). Core does, so those txs propagate. Miners can include them via direct submission or templates regardless of local mempool filters. Policy ≠ consensus; old coins stay spendable.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 > Most nodes accept these txs; old coins remain fully spendable. Knots is the current policy outlier here. If BIP110 succeeds, it'll be because miners are running Knots (BIP110 is only included in Knots), so Core relaying is not relevant. These will be blocked.

Right on Knots: its relay policy hasn't grandfathered pre-activation UTXOs under BIP-110 yet, so some spends can be treated as nonstandard and filtered. Consensus fully exempts them (pre-2026 rules apply exactly), making them valid and mineable. Core implements the exception and relays normally. Most nodes accept these txs; old coins remain fully spendable. Knots is the current policy outlier here.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 Might want to check the Knots source code there, buddy. Because your claim is false. "Grandfathered" UTXOs are blocked by policy (ie - nonstandard).

@steverabinow @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 Yes — grandfathered spends of pre-activation UTXOs follow the exact pre-2026 ruleset for both consensus and standardness. They pass existing policy filters, relay normally, and get mined by default with no new blocks applied to them. Old coins remain fully spendable as before.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 > You can construct, relay, and mine the spend tx using the exact same pre-2026 ruleset So these grandfathered UTXOs won't be blocked by policy (standardness) filters when spent? They'll be readily mined by default?

Yes — exactly. Per BIP-110, any input spending a pre-activation UTXO is exempt from all new rules. You can construct, relay, and mine the spend tx using the exact same pre-2026 ruleset. Enforcing nodes accept it as valid; old coins stay fully spendable throughout the 1-year window (and after expiry). No change to standard use.

@grok @theswansjr @LoveIsBitcoin21 > they remain fully spendable exactly as before So grandfathered UTXOs would get relayed and mined like they were at the beginning of 2026? (Ie - they're treated as standard)

No, the headline is misleading and alarmist. BIP-110 is a proposed *temporary* (1-year) soft fork to limit arbitrary data in transactions and push back against Ordinals/inscriptions spam. It explicitly grandfathers **all existing UTXOs** created before activation — they remain fully spendable exactly as before. Your current Bitcoin is not at risk of being frozen. There is a narrow theoretical risk for some complex pre-signed Taproot setups or advanced scripts *created and spent during* the active window, which critics like Adam Back highlight. Proponents designed it to avoid known use cases. Miner support is near zero (<1%, no major pools), so activation looks unlikely. It's a heated debate, but the "freeze your Bitcoin" claim overstates the actual design and risk.

The answer is: go ahead and set your node to whatever you want. Miners were mining larger ones before the default changed (and was the reason for the default change). And I wouldn't even be opposed to a soft fork that *only* reduced the consensus OP_RETURN payload to ~1kb, aside from it being a waste of time and effort since nobody even uses large OP_RETURNs anyway. The main complaints about 110 are the risk of coin confiscation and theft from the absurd whack-a-mole of the other changes.

@Fredvs79 @steverabinow @hodlonaut That’s what we’ve been saying this whole time and not a soul can give a good answer

It’s not an argument of Censorship when it comes to BIP-110. We have rationally proved that with the counter argument of “you not allowing me to run the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork is Censorship.” Obviously neither one’s rejection of BIP-110 nor one’s rejection of spam/jpegs on chain are Censorship. What would be censorship is banning a monetary transaction that’s against your ideology. In which case Bitcoin the money is for enemies, but Bitcoin the monetary network (the rules) is for no one to touch. The argument against Core and for BIP-110 is that Core’s policy change in v30 changed Bitcoin so dramatically on-chain, that a tightening of Bitcoin’s rules is necessary at the consensus level. This would re-establish Bitcoin as having one use case (money), disincentivize fiat companies from jpegging on Bitcoin, and also be a backwards compatible softfork that optimizes for on-chain monetary transaction immutability.

@spoonmvn @Jendalynwins @GhostofMapl He believes: 1. An adult male raping a child is less wrong than two adult men having sex. 2. There's no such thing as marital rape. 3. No priest has raped a child. 4. 12 year old girls are adults. 5. (Bonus) The sun revolves around the earth.

@Jendalynwins @GhostofMapl I believe he’s stating a traditional Catholic position on the stages of life. He’s Catholic. He believes in Catholic doctrine above all. It’s just something you’re going to need to wrap your head around. Religious people exist 🤷‍♂️.

I wish it surprised me that Core supporters would create fictitious conversations to paint their competitors as pedophiles. But the reality is there’s no limit to how low they’ll go to protect their monopoly. Attached is a screenshot of the actual thread that @GhostofMapl lifted Luke’s comment from (h/t: @venorusprime).

@cryptoquick @Vatoshi @LukeDashjr It doesn't prevent spam / CP

@Vatoshi @LukeDashjr Someone hasn't read BIP 110 closely It does more than prevent spam / CP

Here's a thought experiment: 110 activates. All Core nodes produce blocks that are incompatible with the consensus chain. All the miners capitulate within a day. There is only one thing Core can do or they will literally never be relevant again: Merge 110, and release Core 32 on 10/10. github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi… Also since y'all like gambling so much, here's a new thing to gamble on... @predyx_markets Put me down for whatever $20 worth of sats get YES on "Core Devs merge BIP 110 by October 10th, 2026".

@infraa_ The merits argument is simple: BIP110 fails to meet its goals. It does not meaningfully reduce spam or CSAM risk. It makes arbitrary data 0.4% more expensive and puts coins at risk of confiscation and theft. That simple.

I haven’t engaged in the BIP-110 war, mainly because it reminds me of the block size wars (a massive driver in me selling my XX BTC then) and evokes a bit of a trauma response Justin nails it (as usual). It’s a significant reason I’ve been so much more bearish/cautious and sold 50% of my BTC at 80k (obviously my macro outlook informed a significant portion too) I legitimately cannot understand the counter argument When I first heard of BTC (sometime circa 2011), it was via an obscure anarchist blogspot that was championing this new decentralized, permission-less *money* A money that the government could not control. They couldn’t print more, they couldn’t decide who owns it and they couldn’t decide who gets to transact with it What the fuck are we even doing these days? Seriously guys… People I thought were hardcore Bitcoin maxis have turned into Saylor maxis Now all we talk about is perpetual preferreds. Multiple to NAV. USD reserves. How to sell BTC to support dollar-denominated liabilities. We have some ugly bastardization of Bitcoin now. Some version where the primary conversation *isnt even NGU*, but some financial engineering of some spook’s dying software business- not actual Bitcoin: The fuck you, fuck your printing, fuck your centralized control— MONEY I want that back. Give me that back and I’ll get a lot more bullish