Samwise ₿. Gamgee #BIP-110

💎 Diamond hands and a Dad Bod. What more could you ask for ladies?

It can be your last response if you want, but I have to at least reply to that tirade. "I don't trust a single developer to decide what is a financial transaction... especially NOT Luke!" This is like false dilemma man. BIP-110 doesn't propose that any individual decides what's a financial transaction — It's a proposed rule that activates only if the network adopts it. This is also an Ad hominem attack, Tone. "especially NOT Luke" shows that you clearly have something against @LukeDashjr and are allowing it to cloud your judgement. You are also refuting yourself. By defending Core's v30 default change, YOU are trusting a small group of developers to decide relay policy for everyone. "Non-monetary uses came about because technology was prevented from advancing" This is a pretty questionable cause. You assert that tech restrictions caused the spam. Evidence? As far as I know, inscriptions arose from Taproot's loosened witness rules, not from anything being prevented. What are you specifically talking about here? Help me understand. "Spam issues were used to trick everyone into handing code development to Roger and crew" This is a dirty trick man… You are importing the 2017 blocksize war to taint the current debate, that is a no-go. BIP-110 has no connection to Ver and I’m pretty sure you know it. "How do I know the people behind BIP-110 aren't the ones spamming the chain so we follow their solution?" Look, I’m a conspiracy theorist too, but I demand SOME evidence. What do you have? Also, this seems like a weak attempt at explaining away your position by imputing a shitty motive (with no evidence) to the opposing side (@LukeDashjr, @GrassFedBitcoin, @mattkratter, etc...). "You assume this is not true because Luke goes to church?" I know you are just being dramatic with this, but obviously nobody argued "Luke is trustworthy because he's religious." You can’t attribute that argument to me - I never made it and I haven’t heard anybody else either. "Even when fees hit $100, I never tried to change the rules... and trust me, that was way more annoying" This is somewhat irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Your personal behavior in the past isn't evidence about whether the current policy is right or not. "You won't change your mind until you're holding a Luke shitcoin" Obviously this is just a personal attack. You are saying this so that nothing I say next can count. "This was my last reply... I have more important shit to do" This is a retreat dressed as dismissal — your trying to declare victory while giving up. It is your right to do so of course, but a lot of people look up to you man and you’ve had a meaningful impact on a ton of Bitcoiners, myself included. I simply don’t understand your viewpoint. But I’m trying at least. Tone, seriously a lot people look up to you man.

I'm saying that I DO NOT trust a single developer or economist to decide what is and is not a financial transaction, not me, not you, not Even Saifedean, and especially NOT Luke! - Yes! The non-monetary uses were making Bitcoin difficult to use and that came about because Technology was prevented from advancing (not from restricting it's uses as Bip110 is trying to do). In addition, the issues with the blockchain by the spammers were used to try and trick everyone to follow their solution and hand over code development to Roger and crew. - How do I know that the people behind bip110 are ALSO not the same people who are spamming the chain just so we follow their solution to fix it? You assume this is not true because Luke goes to church? - Evm though transaction fees reached $100, at no point did I try and change the rules to decide what is and is not a valid financial transaction vs spam! And trust me, that was way more annoying than the current spam situation. - SegWit was a Transaction Maliability bug fix + a compromise to big blockers to increase the blocksize with witness data.... If you want to blame the core devs for doing the compromise then go for it. But it was done to avoid a fork and almost everyone agreed it's a good idea for technological progress! This was my last reply to you, I have more important t shit to do and you won't change your mind until you are holding a Luke shitcoin (and maybe not even them)

For anyone interested about the truth: Adam Back is absolutely, overtly and veritably lying about me *ever* supporting BIP110, or even being "a fence sitter" about it. I have always strongly, clearly and unequivocally opposed any similar fork proposal since the very earliest suggestions. I have always been, and remain, consistently opposed to: - using consensus rules to tackle specific types of onchain spam, - defensively addressing any kind of "illegal data" moral panic in any possible way (mempool policies included), - enforcing any controversial consensus change (including the ones I agree with, unlike this one) without clear full-ecosystem agreement. It's a bit unfortunate that a very influential voice in the industry is lying about me, since I have a smaller reach to debunk him. Maybe some of you can help me by spreading the correction. Thanks.

“completely subjective uses”? What do you mean by this? Are you saying that thinking of “bitcoin as money” is completely subjective? Flashback to the last halving, do you remember what non-monetary use cases did to the fees during the last block or two before the halving? Bitcoin as money literally ceased to exist for those blocks. I was listening to a live stream that you were doing at that time. We all watched as it became preposterously expensive to do anything with Bitcoin. That is some scary shit if you think of bitcoin as money.

Disagree across the board, Bitcoin code already has more than enough gates (that work and don't work) adding more gates for completely subjective uses not only destroys what has already been built technologically but also socially, the push for Bip110 is the ultimate example.... No one would care about this limit if people that wanted to rule the protocol did not make a big deal about it.

I follow what you are saying,, but I have to push back a bit on this Tone. Yes, I accept that “4mb of data can fit into a single block every 10 minutes” but just because that is a theoretical possibility doesn’t mean I should invite that space to be wasted on non monetary data. That sidesteps the issue of BITCOIN IS MONEY. Blockspace is a fee market BUT it is backed by a permanent storage burden on every archival node. Filling that space with non monetary data raises node costs forever in service of a use case that most Bitcoiners did not spin up a node to support. Further ,Core normalizes this as a precedent so that WHEN/IF monetary demand actually does arrive (because BITCOIN IS MONEY), it has to compete against entrenched non-monetary data users. It is just objectively true that most of this bloat is non monetary. If we believe that BITCOIN IS MONEY, we have to make a stand against this now before it becomes totally ubiquitous.

How can you look at the UTXO Bloat & call it a non- problem? - There is NO UTXO 'bloat' in my view ... In 2016 there was a compromise w/ Big Blockers to increase the amount of data stuffed into a 1mb block with witness data (aka SegWit). from that moment on, I have accepted the reality that up to 4mb of data can fit into a single block every 10 minutes. - While the type of data that has been 'occasionally' popular to enter the blockspace has been 'unwanted' it does not change the technical reality that the Bitcoin blockchain is growing at an even slower pace than it was designed to grow. We all expected block space to be full with ONLY financial data by now as the world realizes Bitcoin is the best form of payment & savings. But today blocks are NOT full and that space is available for other uses. - in addition, if these spammers were to switch from using witness data to Op_Return space instead, they would actually take up LESS space in the UTXO set with this spam vs more! (This is the technical reason for removing the limit most #Bip110 supporters are not able to or refuse to understand)

More SPAM -> Less Nodes -> more centralization #BIP110 Decentralization is worth fighting for!

@nonexistent_iam Weak nonsense. This has been debated to death. Among its many problems is that the fee market prices inclusion, not perpetuity. The bigger issue is that: BITCOIN IS MONEY, NOT DATA STORAGE. The protocol should align with what Bitcoin is -hence #BIP110.

@taters_bitcoin That's why we say "the fees are the filter". Limited blockspace + fee market means when there's enough demand for financial transactions most of the jpegs & tokens will be priced out. So it's not worth making protocol changes that are risky and easily circumvented to fight it. 🙏

If you’re not with us, you have to be ACTIVELY against us -otherwise you’re ACCIDENTALLY with us. URSF or STFU! #BIP110

@ToneVays @jacob3141592 @giacomozucco Tone how can you look at the UTXO set bloat and the giant OpReturns data and call it a "non-problem"? I fundamentally do not understand why people hacking 'Bitcoin as money' for this garbage doesn't bother you. You used to be the KING of calling out Shitcoiners!

Did you think removing op_return limit despite mass opposition was a good idea? 👇 - There was no massive opposition during the removal discussion phase leading to v30. (Minor opposition sure, but there is always minor opposition to every change). - I had no opinion on the issue at the time, and in general 'trust' in the decentralized group of Bitcoin Devs to make the proper technical decisions that protect & grow people's BTC life savings. - In hindsight, based on reviewing/discussing the technical reasons for OP_Return's limit removal, I agree with the Core Dev decision to do so. - Also, in hindsight, I wish it wasn't removed because of the shit storm it brought to the community's social layer (mostly because there are too many non-technical people & Conspiracy theorists who still think Epstein controls development) - I do not believe that it's possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together. Hence pushing for a contentious #Bip110 Soft Fork out of Consensus is literally the WORT SOLUTION to a non-problem. (But I would expect nothing less from people who don't understand the technical reasons for removing the limit)

@AAStack @TerriTortuguero @zaidlikesmstr @LaDoger No wonder your ideas about what Bitcoin is are so fucked up.

@TerriTortuguero @zaidlikesmstr @LaDoger He taught me Bitcoin

Saylor is many things, but ultimately, he's an educator. He teaches us is in every podcast, every interview, every keynote and is constantly improving the educational content of his university. Of the work Saylor will be remembered for, many decades from now, I think Saylor, the Educator, is the most noble one of all.

@coinjoined @Shireh0dl Hey frat boy, is your main opposition to BIP110 just that you think Luke is weird?

@Shireh0dl The real irony is that in the original wolf of wallstreet clip he asks how often he masturbates.

Tweet is shit, but I love the video 😂

@nonexistent_iam You are welcome.

@taters_bitcoin Ok bro, thanks for updating me on what I think and what my correct designation is. I shall henceforth be known as the spammer who doesn't spam.

@nonexistent_iam But, you don't see SPAM as an attack. So you are a spammer.

@taters_bitcoin I've never spammed in my life 🤷‍♂️

@coinjoined you guys suck at memes

"Trust me Mechanic — I knew BIP110 would lead to a chainsplit. Now watch me adjust the difficulty and make the Bitaxes go... *pounds his chest* thump thump next block." BIP110 is a Fugazi.

@nonexistent_iam #BIP110 is an immune response to you spammers.

@taters_bitcoin The Bitcoin network is highly resilient to attacks by small minorities who delude themselves into believing they can take it over. It's ACTIVELY working against you already. Sorry.

@GhostofMapl Just to be friendly, huh? 🤔

@taters_bitcoin Same reason any friend tells another to stop being a retard... you're going to fork yourself a new one. You find 1 block every couple hundred..... longest chain, ring a bell?

1558. Worker

If the industry ignores the community on BIP110 (no reason to think they will at present) then you have your head in the sand if you don't think they'll make a play for breaking 21m next. "Pleb slop" nodes are literally the only thing enforcing halvings.

@ErinEMalone @TPmarketwatch You just go along with the popular crowd. that’s your style..

I wasn’t going to waste the energy on this ridiculous debate, but enough people have asked… I’ll say it as diplomatically as I can: I run Bitcoin Core because I’m not an idiot. Now back to building.

@GhostofMapl If it wasn’t, why would you bother telling me?

@taters_bitcoin Not how it works, retard.

@GhostofMapl It is actually. Do some work man.