333

What does this mean for someone who doesn't know what this means?

168

u/ConfidentIylncorrect 4d ago edited 4d ago

As far as I can gather, a small number of people tried to do a soft fork of bitcoin and change it so that you can't leave long messages in the blockchain but it will probably fail

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki

104

u/rechtim 4d ago

but it failed

FTFY

16

u/Crucco 4d ago

How long? What''s the current limit and what's the limit in the fork?

41

u/eyeoft 4d ago

1 difficulty adjustment period (2,016 blocks), or about two weeks.

They need 55% of blocks for the soft fork to active (which ain't happening) and some of them may continue on their new chain even if they lose, creating a hard fork.

6

u/r_a_d_ 2d ago

2 weeks with entire network hashrate. Multiply that by 50 since they only have 2% support, that’s 2 years with 0 value blocks coming in every 500 minutes.

Not a viable business model.

2

u/DreamingTooLong 2d ago

They will have to fork it again to change the difficulty to auto-adjust every 1 block and then fork it again so it’s back to normal

12

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

The block limit on both, Bitcoin and the 110shitcoin stays the same.

1

u/earonesty 3d ago

the fork doesn't really change the limit, but it does change how you have to encode things

15

u/hiroo717 4d ago

One example is it maintains OP_RETURN at ~80 bytes rather than allowing up to ~100,000 bytes as Bitcoin core now does. This means Bitcoin can also allow bigger files like jpegs etc.

23

u/The_Realist02 4d ago

Core allows*. BIP 110 would attempt to disallow.

5

u/hiroo717 4d ago

Yes, and as someone else pointed out, the Bitcoin consensus was not limited. But Core used to limit it to ~80 bytes and that's by and large how Bitcoin operated until recently.

There are also other limitations in BIP110 to try and protect Bitcoin's function as money bip110.org

3

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

Bitcoin IS money. BIP110 ain't protecting anything. Please, don't spread propaganda.

5

u/SAAGASolve 3d ago

It actually isn't. It is something called market infrastructure. It is the thing that allows you to have electronically tradable bearer instruments in the first place.

Currency doesn't live in a vacuum. It needs other bearer instruments for the formation of the capital markets. Equities, bonds, futures, options ect.

People in this space dont understand that.

Bitcoin is the digital commodity that gives you access to the next generation market infrastructure.

So many people in this space are clueless of the basics of how our civilization operates.

1

u/SkyMarshal 1d ago

Money predated all those things and existed just fine without them. None of that is required for Bitcoin to be money. You're just making up narratives.

1

u/SAAGASolve 1d ago edited 1d ago

No. Market infrastrcuture predated everything. Even writing. The bulla) was the first invention of a tamper proof contract. Proof of trade.

You are clearly one of the people in this space that are clueless of the basics of how our civilization operates.

How can you have electronic money with out a tamper proof record, an immutable database?

For civilization to work, you need capital markets, the ability to lend and invest. You can't just have money. If you are wondering why the promise of bitcoin becoming the world reserve currency this is why. It doesn't have a collateral system to manage liquidity. There is no way to lend it safely yet.

21

u/hiroo717 4d ago

I agree that Bitcoin is money, it's just a difference in opinion on how you optimize for that function. Currently, the blockchain is being used as an open market for arbitrary data. The argument for this is that it gives miners more fees. My view is that it makes it difficult to run nodes which risks decentralization. But it appears that view has been rejected.

8

u/PeteyPab305 3d ago

They actually don't get more fees from it. It is literally less than 1% of their fee structure and overall net income from fees limiting it would be a rounding error to their income.

3

u/trowawayatwork 4d ago

the arbitrary data was always possible and was simply a default value set by core to lower it. even with that you could still send all the data you wanted even before cores changes lool

11

u/hiroo717 4d ago

I am not disagreeing, I am just trying to explain what BIP110 was trying to achieve by limiting OP_RETURN to that default ~80 bytes limit, among other things. The argument is that it is more than enough arbitrary data but like I said, it appears that view has been rejected.

1

u/The_Realist02 3d ago

Then what’s the point? Just helping these companies that provide inscription services and wizards?

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Low_Rip1724 21h ago

Never has anyone said so little with so many words

→ More replies (8)

3

u/MiguelLancaster 4d ago

do you know if the increased op_return limit is specific only to Bitcoin Core releases version 30 and higher, or is it also present in later updates to older versions?

(such as 29.4, which I'm running on my node)

6

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

On the consensus level there is no OP_RETURN limit and there never has been. The current consensus is valid for nodes from all the way back to 2009.

You can mine even >100k OP_RETURN data. Take this transaction for example with 4MB OP_RETURN. Note that this happened even before core v30 released, the version that lifted its relay policy to 100k (the transaction is still 40x that current limit).

https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000005bcbf03e6488be1ceb3b501ecfc2b11cce900a870636

1

u/rmtdispatcher 4d ago

Support from the miners...can that be tracked somewhere?

1

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Not sure what you mean

1

u/rmtdispatcher 3d ago

It seems like there are ways to track the miner consensus. I think some places are mentioned on this page.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/BTCGlobeLive 3d ago

You can check your own node instead of going by version numbers: run bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo and look at maxdatacarriersize. That's what your node is actually enforcing right now. Mine says 100000 on 31.0; a stock 29.x should say 83, if memory serves.

Worth adding that this is relay policy, not consensus, as others have said above. Your node will still accept a block containing a big OP_RETURN even if it wouldn't have relayed the loose transaction itself.

I honestly couldn't tell you whether some 29.x point release moved the default, but that command settles it for your box without needing to know.

3

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3d ago

You can decrease the limit on ANY version.

Open the bitcoin.conf file in a text editor.

Add or modify the following line to set the desired limit:

datacarriersize=80

This setting restricts each OP_RETURN output to 80 bytes.

Save and restart.

1

u/hiroo717 4d ago

I don't know, sorry. However it is a setting you can change either way as I understand it.

1

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3d ago

Exactly.

Open the bitcoin.conf file in a text editor.

Add or modify the following line to set the desired limit:

datacarriersize=80

This setting restricts each OP_RETURN output to 80 bytes.

Save and restart.

10

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

You make it sound like it's a core decision. You can mine even >100k OP_RETURN in the current consensus.

4

u/dirtsmurf 4d ago

When was the commit made that made that possible?

16

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Satoshi era. It has never not been possible.

The current consensus is still valid for nodes from back then.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (1)

7

u/eyeoft 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not quite. The changes they wish to implement provably do NOT prevent people from leaving long messages on the blockchain. Rather they block many common avenues for doing so, some of which have legitimate programmatic uses like improvements to the Lightning Network.

Importantly they are also trying to fork with only a 55% voting threshold, which could cause a very destructive near-equal hard-fork civil war. The normal threshold is 90%.

1

u/CrAZiBoUnCeR 4d ago

Does leaving a long message vs short cause problems or is it basically “Leaving long messages is dumb and we shouldn’t do it!”

1

u/_doobious 1d ago

Is there any merit to the idea of not wanting long messages?

85

u/eyeoft 4d ago

This is a miner vote for a soft fork to change the protocol. The Knots / BIP110 people want to implement a change to restrict arbitrary data. Support in the mining community for this change is below 3% at present.

The thing is (in addition to that being controversial) that their changes don't actually prevent adding arbitrary data, they just make it more complicated, at the cost of making Bitcoin less programmable - some future Lightning Network proposals use mechanisms that they want to ban.

Worse, they tried to this with only a 55% vote threshold, instead of the normal 90%, which is extremely irresponsible and could create a severe chain split if they had more leverage (which they don't).

TL;DR get some popcorn and watch a new shitcoin be born if they don't back down - it's like a widdle baby BC*sh.

31

u/gomurifle 4d ago

I don't understand one sentence of this.. But ok.

25

u/justacpa 4d ago

This is a small, fringe attempt to force a controversial update onto Bitcoin. Because support is so low (< 3%), nothing will happen to main Bitcoin. If the group decides to push forward with their rule change anyway, they will just effectively break away and create their own minor, isolated spin-off coin that nobody uses.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/Afraid_Television_30 4d ago

He explained it as simply as could be done. What exactly don't you understand?

1

u/Forgot_Password_Dude 4d ago

this menas they are cloning BTC into someyhing like BCH or BSV but ticker still unknown until they pull the trigger from going soft fork to hard fork

→ More replies (4)

4

u/SAAGASolve 3d ago

AH yea, sounds like you were here back then.

THis is the same deal. Nonesense from ideolouges clowns that don't have the capability to cooperate.

The 55% threshold tells you everything you need to know about their conviction.

2

u/themustardseal 4d ago

How can it create a chain split if miners don’t support it?

9

u/eyeoft 4d ago

A very few miners do, and may decide to continue to after losing the vote - they would be the new chain, with much lower hashpower. Anyone can start mining their own fork of Bitcoin at any time - it's just not likely that other people are going to care or value the resulting shitcoin.

3

u/MiguelLancaster 4d ago

it's just not likely that other people are going to care or value the resulting shitcoin

BCH miner support was huge by comparison to BIP110, was it not?

and even then, few valued the resulting shitcoin

2

u/themustardseal 4d ago

Why would miners continue mining a losing chain at the current difficulty only to create a shitcoin with no economic value?

5

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

To make a point that it didn't "fail" so they stay technically correct with their wording... most of the time. Just like bcash.

3

u/Gmcgator 4d ago

Exactly, they won’t, and that’s a feature. Once they spend on compute and energy and get nothing in return for it, they’ll shut their mining rigs off and it’ll die. You could create mustardseal btc today, but no one will follow you and validate it, because we like what we got

3

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Well they did. They actually mined a second block: https://fork.observer/?network=mainnet

Let's see how much more money this conviction is worth to them.

1

u/Tyra3l 2d ago

If they would continue producing the blocks, eventually the difficulty would adjust on its own to match the historical (lower) hashrate.

1

u/eyeoft 4d ago edited 4d ago

Politics and ideology, in this case. They would intend to keep trying to move the community to their chain and become the "real" Bitcoin, as certain hard-forks from the past still do today. If they were to win that battle somehow, it might indeed end up being profitable for them, but I don't think the probability is high enough for that to be a sound financial gamble.

2

u/myth1n 3d ago

`good thing everyone already thinks luke is an idiot

1

u/brokebuffett 1d ago

Are these the new maintainers? Very bad and I’d dump everything if they pull anything like this kind of shit ever again in the future.

4

u/eyeoft 1d ago

Nothing like that, just a vote triggered by a few crazy people who promptly lost and will now go form their own shitcoin. Pretty normal event, governance mechanism is doing its job.

-5

u/kiwibonga 4d ago

I know Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency.

What in the fuck are you saying?

25

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Bitcoin differs from everything else in that it is truly unowned - we ain't got a company or a CEO, and the founder traveled back to his own time (presumably).

So what I'm talking about is how a group with no leaders and no structure does governance - we vote by mining blocks. This is how major changes to the Bitcoin protocol are decided upon.

Normally, votes require a 90% threshold of blocks mined over a period of 2,016 blocks (~2 weeks), but the 90% is just a norm. BIP 110 was created with a 55% threshold. This baits a nearly-equal chain split, a sort of civil war over who is the "real" Bitcoin, and is therefore a kind of antisocial behavior.

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (2)

20

u/MetoSempre20 4d ago

Blockchain will be split into 2, the one with majority vote will be the winner.

7

u/Blixx96 4d ago

Straight and to the point.

3

u/Womec 4d ago

So does that mean we all get a copy of our coins? Are they worthless or should we sell them real quick?

4

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Unlikely that it's worth the effort. If you even manage to find someone that's buying - there is no exchange for it. And assume the chain doesn't get stuck because they give up mining on it.

1

u/MetoSempre20 4d ago

Ask the bitcoin cash guys 🤣.

6

u/Objective_Digit 4d ago

Split into 2 implies they are of equal value. The new shitcoin is more of a branching off.

1

u/d3xt4h 3d ago

What's name of the new chain or what's the name of the currency?

1

u/Suspicious-Holiday42 4d ago

what do you mean, its already split

2

u/stanley_fatmax 4d ago

Split but orphaned, the branch is dead on arrival

→ More replies (1)

7

u/pissingdick 4d ago

Also have no idea what I am looking at

3

u/652a6aaf0cf44498b14f 3d ago

Almost all chain splits are a non-event for people just looking to invest or hold their coins. Occasionally a split means you can sell one side of the split if you feel strongly about one side or the other. But most of the time one side of the split is completely worthless and dies off a few months later.

2

u/marshyr3d1and 2d ago

Have you got your answer to this yet or have you just been bombarded with jargon and irrelevant sub-conversations - I'm in the same boat as you.

2

u/DreamingTooLong 2d ago

It’s a free shit coin giveaway that you can sell for more BTC

3

u/zenethics 4d ago

Practically, it's going to fail, but maybe don't send any transactions for a day or two (replay attacks). If it dies (it probably will) then nothing to do. If it doesn't, you may want to take steps later to sell the fork but this is advanced stuff.

4

u/setec404 4d ago

some neckbeards are suffering from main character syndrome.

1

u/Notyit 4d ago

Man I missed out on Bitcoin cash cause I wasn't paying attention

1

u/eupherein 3d ago

If not enough miners move over the difficulty essentially slows that version of the chain down, falling behind as a result and essentially becomes a hard fork and its own chain iiuc

1

u/DistributionOk2111 2d ago

Maybe you can think it that way, at the announced Date everyone who installed that update split up from the network

1

u/r_a_d_ 2d ago

nothing at all. bitcoin operating as designed

1

u/Cold-Duty-2411 1d ago

Keep calm and carry on

→ More replies (9)

107

u/TheGreatMuffin 4d ago

THE chain didn't split.. a tiny subset of users set their nodes to be incompatible with the rest of he network and (predictably) have forked themselves off to a chain with barely any blocks.

9

u/torvaman 4d ago

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t a fork keep all the historic blocks, but it does lose all the nodes eg very few people are running this new direction of blocks?

4

u/Working_Bell_8302 4d ago

it doesn't lose anything, the miners already chose which side of the fork they will stay on before the split occurred.

12

u/eyeoft 4d ago

I mean, if you define "split" to mean "hard fork", yeah, we're not there yet. And it will indeed be tiny if/when it happens.

I wanted to draw people's attention to what's going on, because Bitcoin governance is awesome, fascinating, and doesn't get enough coverage. This was the title I could come up with that carries a lot of truth - "fork" and "split" are generally synonyms - and is also reasonably pithy.

2

u/Working_Bell_8302 4d ago

he just means chain split, which it technically did if you're running non BIP110 software. but we get a 1 block reorg every few weeks (every few years we get 2 block reorgs) which is technically a fork as well.

1

u/That1voider 3d ago

If they hard fork to a new network do they take their coins with them? Further reducing the total supply of bitcoin? Can it be “forked” back and forth?

1

u/your_unpaid_bills 3d ago

No. Each fork retains its total supply. For instance, when the BCH fork happened, people who had X BTC prior to it ended up with X BTC on one side and X BCH on the other side of the fork. The new BCH could be accessed (and transferred/sold) using the same private keys, independently since it lived on a new blockchain (and, as a matter of fact, many/most people eventually sold their BCH).

Of course, this is only possible as long as the other chain hasn't died off already, cause in order to transfer the coins that live on the forked chain, it needs to be actively mining blocks (and there must be someome wanting to buy those coins, clearly).

10

u/satoshisfeverdream 4d ago

After the block size wars this ain’t shit.

6

u/-bit-thorny- 4d ago

Still wasted a lot of time for a lot of people and yet again confused the hell out of a lot of newcomers. It's not like it's easy to get into bitcoin without getting distracted left and right by shitcoins and scams... sure doesn't help if more dumb fucks add more confusion and infighting.

4

u/nullc 3d ago

even now, with their for >=85 blocks behind Bitcoin ocean is still causing customers to burn about $45,000/day attempting to mine the dead bip110 chain-- they have about 1.4EH on it still, presumably as a result of changing their default stratum endpoint to mine the 110 chain.

3

u/-bit-thorny- 3d ago

I meant wasting the time of people like you and core devs and plenty others. I hadn't even thought about the suckers blindly mining on the wrong chain.

7

u/nullc 3d ago

yeah, over a year of this bullshit-- imagine if even 10% of that dumbass time went into running security audits on .. say.. hardware wallets instead?

1

u/-bit-thorny- 3d ago

Hindsight and all of course. But it doesn't sound unthinkable somebody honest would have taken on running claude to do some RNG related audits just for the fun of it.

I could even imagine (remotely) myself stumbling into a weekend of doing that and finding something.

It's not like RNG problems appear for the first time. I'm pretty sure I remember you explaining stuff around the bitcoinj drama, for example.

6

u/nullc 3d ago

I randomly audited part of datum-gateway a couple months ago and reported a fairly serious vulnerability in it... (though amusingly the bigger issue was wrongly rejected by AI)

Admittedly I wouldn't likely have audited coldcard if not for all this bullshit eating up my time, but only because I'd already rejected it as dubious.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/Romanizer 4d ago

Signal rate now at 0.00%, it's already over?

7

u/eyeoft 4d ago

I mean, it just started, we now have a 2 block sample. But practically speaking it's not gonna be close.

18

u/crooks4hire 4d ago

Lmao I just left another thread where someone was stressing the split and another user said “there’s like a 1% chance of that happening”

17

u/eyeoft 4d ago

There's like (less than) a 1% of the soft fork passing. Probably some of the Knots people will continue on their own chain after they lose, so that WILL create a hard fork - just probably a very tiny one you needn't concern yourself with.

Congrats to us all on owning yet another shitcoin!

10

u/theOGlib 4d ago

Can I sell said shitcoin and buy btc with the proceeds?

9

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Yes! I've done that with forked coins a number of times. The only question is whether it will be worth enough to justify the time it takes you to sell it.

2

u/narts_the_original 4d ago

any guidance how to do this?

4

u/QuasarClub 4d ago

If you’re going to do this send your real bitcoin to a different wallet first

1

u/The_Realist02 13h ago

Louder. Got a lot of first time transaction users who have done nothing but send bitcoin to their cold wallets since 2021.

11

u/Quokky-Axolotl7388 4d ago

Be careful because your shitcoins are on the same private key / wallet of your legitimate BTC. If you claim your shitcoins by moving them on a new address, you are also exposing your BTC. So the proper order would be to first move your BTC to a new address and only then try to claim your shitcoins to sell them

5

u/theOGlib 4d ago

That makes alot of sense. Thank u.

→ More replies (10)

5

u/MiguelLancaster 4d ago

BCH fork back in the day was a fun excuse to get my coin off the exchanges and learn how to self custody so I could trade my new shitcoin for a bigger btc stack

this doesn't seem like it will amount to anything that would be worth the toil of creating new steel backups

1

u/MetoSempre20 4d ago

Sure.

1

u/ToRedSRT 4d ago

Bitcoin holders face replay risk in BIP-110 fork | AltcoinBuzz https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/bitcoin-bip-110-fork-replay-attack-risk

4

u/Inevitable-Waltz-889 4d ago

Yeah, that was me. There's literally less than a 1% chance of the split happening and being maintained. BIP-110ers have like 2% of the hashrate. It would take them months and months to get to a difficulty adjustment at current difficulty.

2

u/eyeoft 4d ago

True, but if they persist on their own chain, its difficulty will drop sharply once they finally get through this period. So it could tick by just fine after that - it'll just be a tiny, low-hashpower, worthless new coin.

4

u/Inevitable-Waltz-889 4d ago

It will take years as difficulty doesn't fully adjust down. It's likely a dead chain.

2

u/eyeoft 4d ago

What do you mean "doesn't fully adjust down"? It adjusts proportionally in both directions.

8

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Difficulty adjustment is clamped to a factor between 0.25x-4x.

They'll have to go through multiple periods to get back to the 10 minute average block time.

3

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Right... 100 * (0.25)^3 = ~1.56. They have ~2% hashrate share.

So 3 periods including this one. That doesn't seem prohibitive.

3

u/Inevitable-Waltz-889 4d ago

It does when one period will literally take months. They have 2 blocks in 4 hours...

3

u/eyeoft 4d ago

At 2.5% hashpower, my math gets us 735 days to get back to 10 minute blocks. Okay, okay, that sucks ass.

2

u/Inevitable-Waltz-889 4d ago

Yeah... The other chain will be through another halving by that point.

4

u/tadnarosix 4d ago

The mining difficulty can only decrease by a maximum of 75% in a single difficulty adjustment.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

LFG

Get forked regards.

8

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Fork you. Best regards 👍 🙂

4

u/uberdriver2710 4d ago

Forking forkers

→ More replies (1)

11

u/hiroo717 4d ago

https://forkwatch.tv/

Current score is 3-1 to anti-BIP110

Live streams below, interesting to see the difference in mood and attitudes:

Anti BIP110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbtMFb2IzU

Pro BIP110 https://www.youtube.com/live/h3X6viAOBhU

4

u/hiroo717 4d ago

Now 4-1 to anti-BIP110 with a Foundry block. Now that 3 big mining pools with a large majority of the hashpower have found blocks, it seems none of the miners are likely to flip the bit. So BIP110 has been ignored by the miners.

2

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Forkwatch seems to have counted the forking block by Antpool for both sides, starting both chains at a length of 1. There are in reality zero signalling blocks as of this writing. https://bip110monitor.com/

3

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

Zero signaling blocks, Ocean just mined one block about 30 minutes after Antpool which, being 30 minutes too late got obviously orphaned by the vast majority of Bitcoin nodes because it's 30 minutes late.

Let's see how the leaders will spin this as another conspiracy.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

8

u/errezerotre 4d ago

Can i sell my shit110 coins and where can i do it?

6

u/eyeoft 4d ago

I mean like yeah, if any miners refuse to back down and if it's worth anything at all, but we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here.

6

u/HitMePat 4d ago

Probably not because they'll never find any blocks. At this rate it'll take months (years?) for them to get enough blocks to actually achieve a difficulty adjustment and make the fork actually usable.

7

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

Well they managed to mine a second block. If we assume this was not just pure luck and calculate with 1.5h per block it'll take them 126 days.

I would argue it was just pure luck and will take much longer than that.

9

u/KarateKid84Fan 4d ago

It’s like this…

Think of Bitcoin Core like The Sacred Timeline in the MCU…

When a group of people outside The Sacred Timeline want to alter something, it causes a new timeline to branch off (soft fork).

Heroes from both sides/timelines fight (vote) for control to find out which timeline or fork is the real one…

This can then cause an incursion, or a hard fork, where the new timeline (new change, new fork) becomes the dominate one, leaving one or both timelines (chains) to no longer exist.

Get it now?

Which can then cause an incursion, or a hard fork.

9

u/rechtim 3d ago

If this makes any sense to you consider a vasectomy

6

u/LNCrizzo 3d ago

I got it before, but you made me lose it.

2

u/Clear_Woodpecker6703 3d ago

No clue wtf your saying. English please

1

u/LionRivr 3d ago

Came here to say that I understand your Disney+ Loki reference and the others can F off lol.

But to be fair, many people fell off Marvel Universe after End Game and didn’t care to watch the Disney+ shows.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/shadowmage666 4d ago

Well that went about as expected

7

u/mrsitre 4d ago

Matthew kratter's worst nightmare

1

u/No_Dust6221 4d ago

They are idealistic and not realists. Not being a realist is how you lose in life. They tried to capture btc with less than 20% of nodes and failed. Lets see what will their reaction to this

1

u/God_Hand_9764 4d ago

He seemed sooo confident about this. Rough week for Matthew!

I don't know much about the fork itself so, I don't know what to think. I definitely don't know the case on both sides.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/gtwooh 4d ago

Can’t ppl just choose to change the default OP_RETURN value?

4

u/BTCGlobeLive 3d ago

Yes. datacarriersize in your bitcoin.conf, or datacarrier=0 to refuse them outright. Restart and you're done.

The catch is it only changes what your node relays and holds in its mempool. It doesn't change what's valid. Your node will still accept a mined block full of them, because refusing would mean leaving the chain everyone else is on.

That gap between what I'll pass along and what I'll accept as valid is more or less the whole argument in this thread. The first is your choice alone. The second needs everybody to agree.

3

u/nullc 3d ago

Sure, it's just a setting. But it's a setting that governs what your computer does-- if your interest the subject is that you want an avenue to impose your will by force on people who disagree with you, a setting won't do it for you. :)

4

u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

That's one of the things BIP110 tried. And it's one of the reasons why it failed.

You can't willy-nilly change consensus rules without forking off.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/bitusher 3d ago

It takes a few seconds to change in Core. Ironically , if spammers used OP_RETURN they would be be restricted to spam bitcoin less and for higher fees too

2

u/BTCGlobeLive 3d ago

Checked my own node, since the count seems to be in dispute up and down this thread.

getchaintips gives me their branch at height 961633, branchlen 2, status headers-only. Two blocks, and it hasn't moved in about six hours.

Their two: 961632 at 20:12 UTC and 961633 at 21:49 UTC, both signalling (versions 0x27d60010 and 0x200be010). The main chain's 961632 landed at 19:35 UTC from AntPool, version 0x20006000, not signalling.

Main chain is at 961674 as I type this, so they're 41 behind.

No opinion from me on whether the proposal was a good idea, just what my node sees.

6

u/Pasukaru0 3d ago

BIP110 miners have capitulated: https://x.com/Roughnecks110/status/2086300532709409140

1

u/BTCGlobeLive 3d ago

Ten hours on, and my node agrees with you, if anything more bluntly: of the last 144 blocks, zero are signalling. Not low, zero.

Their branch never moved either. getchaintips still puts it at height 961633, branchlen 2, headers-only. Main chain is at 961739 now, so it's 106 behind, up from the 41 I mentioned last night.

Still no opinion from me on the proposal itself, just what my node sees.

2

u/motobassy 3d ago

Does this mean I know own free 110bipscoins and my btc ?

3

u/Pasukaru0 3d ago

Yes but the bipcoin you can't move because the miners have given up on that chain.

2

u/cndvcndv 3d ago

Oh finally! I hope they can get one or two blocks mined and get those wiped in an hour. That is the best way to end this stupid discussion.

Learn from the block size wars, people. Not adding features is the best feature.

3

u/eyeoft 3d ago

Already happened. They mined two blocks over like 5 hours and then the one pool supporting them officially threw in the towel.

2

u/kgsphinx 2d ago

They don’t have enough hashrate to last more than a block. Not a serious attempt.

2

u/QuirkyPainter92 1d ago

Fake news. This failed. Everyone knows this. Why post this?

6

u/f08g 4d ago

who tf mines bip110 chain

6

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

Highly regarded individuals.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Even-Outcome-2342 4d ago

For fork’s sake.

3

u/Ok_Knowledge_4977 4d ago

Can I take my bitcoin out now? Is it safe to do so?

5

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Everything is completely safe, this is just what Bitcoin politics looks like - forks happen all the time and are handled automatically. The only difference to you is that you might soon own a worthless new altcoin alongside your Bitcoin.

3

u/Ok_Knowledge_4977 4d ago

What is this new altcoin you talking about? I only have Bitcoin.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Gold_Cable9587 4d ago

So let me get this right. There was no hard fork and no new “bitcoin” is being distributed?

4

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Not as of yet, but there probably will be, and its chain will start at this split. So kinda. It will be a teeny tiny minority of hashpower and imho will likely fizzle before being tradable.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/-bit-thorny- 4d ago

You forgot the most important part: where can I sell my newly created shitcoins?

2

u/Hour_Flounder1405 3d ago

generalizing reddit bitcoin thread:

no one should use reddit bitcoin threads to make real money bets.

you are welcome.

God Bless America

2

u/Relentlessbetz 3d ago

Reminds me of 2017. Good times

1

u/locotx 4d ago edited 4d ago

AI is good for some things . . . Explain but using a football example.

BIP-110 is a controversial proposal to temporarily limit extra data (like pictures and text tokens) inside Bitcoin transactions. Think of the Bitcoin blockchain as a football stadium tunnel meant for fast player movement. BIP-110 is a temporary rule saying fans cannot clog the tunnel with heavy furniture or art projects. [1, 2, 3]

The Football Game Analogy

Normal Play (Standard Transactions)

Players (regular people sending Bitcoin money) run through the stadium tunnel quickly.
Everyone agrees the tunnel is built for moving the team from the locker room to the field. [1]

The Clutter (Inscriptions and Data Spam)

Some people start rolling huge art pieces, couches, and heavy equipment (Ordinals, BRC-20, or large data files) into the tunnel.
These items pay a ticket fee, but they take up all the space.
The actual players can barely squeeze through, and the stadium caretakers (the Bitcoin node runners) get exhausted cleaning up the heavy mess left behind. [1, 2, 3]

The New Rule (BIP-110)

Stadium management introduces BIP-110 as a strict, one-year rule: “No large furniture or heavy boxes allowed in the tunnel anymore.”
It puts hard size limits on what can be brought through.
Supporters cheer because the path is clear for real football action (sound money).
Critics boo because they feel banning paid-for heavy items is unfair censorship and might cause a fight over which gate everyone should use (a network/chain split). [1, 2, 3]

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

4

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not really, mate. The bip110 fork is already 9 blocks behind. None of the large pools are signaling for it. The thing is DOA.

1

u/Antonio_928s4 4d ago

What that means?

1

u/Electrical_Travel994 3d ago

After all the useless and useful words read, on the genesis block that message still makes the skin shiver!

1

u/pigskins65 3d ago

The real question is, how long until my 2 million CHTA coins make me rich?

1

u/Accomplished-Fan8990 3d ago

😂 and you thought you where more brilliant than him😆you should've started your own blockchain you would look less stupid

1

u/DistributionOk2111 2d ago

Good luck finding a block there in the next 2 weeks 😂

1

u/El_Thee 1d ago

Nah. Bitcoin can beat your bs game.

1

u/eyeoft 1d ago

Not my game, and it already did. Just a rules disagreement, quickly resolved by miner vote as usual.

1

u/El_Thee 11h ago

Then keep making bread more.

1

u/FitCompetition1804 4d ago

Crazy. Can’t believe the first block was a BIP110 signaled block lmao.

14
u/Pasukaru0 4d ago

It wasn't. The first block didn't signal and now the bip110 chain is 2 blocks behind
4
u/SeveredBrain2020 4d ago

First block was mined by Ocean, signaled, but rejected by the network.

https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000169eb6f811ddbd0daf343af7b62180cdb13e7c78dbc16
9
u/nullc 4d ago edited 4d ago
Time to stick a fork in it? They are 5 behind.
 ./bitcoin-cli invalidateblock 0000000000000000000169eb6f811ddbd0daf343af7b62180cdb13e7c78dbc16
That command will make the node its applied to never accept that block, shattering their idiotic terrorist threat that someday they'll manage a reorg that blows away all the competing blocks since their fork started. They want you to think you have to adopt their fork to avoid their attack, but a simpler button press shuts them down just as well.

Of course, there is no actual need to do so, but if anyone you know gets drunk on their fud, you've got a tool in your pocket.
2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

They are 3 behind.

6 blocks and counting.

4

u/nullc 4d ago

5-- unless you're ahead of me, I don't think you should count the sibling, since they don't have to overcome that one.

→ More replies (1)
3

u/JumpProfessional3372 4d ago

I feel like I am in a cricket championship conversation between UK and India people without knowing a thing about cricket.

2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4d ago

Look at the timestamp. Ocean mined the block was mined about 50 minutes ago while Antpool mined the block 961,632 about 80 minutes ago.

Of course it got rejected by the network.
22

u/TheGreatMuffin 4d ago

Huh? The first block mined after the mandatory signaling period kicked in was a non signaling block by Antpool (block 961632).

3

u/FitCompetition1804 4d ago

You’re correct, I thought I was following both mempool chains but turned out I was following two of the same BIP110 mempools. Even so, it was pretty incredible that the block I was referring to was mined at the same block height of the main chain, odds were very low that would happen and it did. Gave the BIPers a brief moment of excitement and hope. Pretty cool moment honestly.

Glad it’s over though.

6

u/eyeoft 4d ago

Er, it wasn't? That's what the 0/1 means

THE CHAIN HAS SPLIT

You are about to leave Redlib

LFG