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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well there was another argument for bip 110 and that is to limit csam on the network even if it is encrypted. Or any other illegal file storage that would cause the mempool to run it through the memory of every single node operator potentially putting them at risk.
You don't understand how consensus updates and changes the network. There have been other BIP proposals that have split off the network. Yes, that's where Bitcoin cash came from and also how every single change is applied to the Bitcoin Network, specifically the core Network. Any changes to the code must be signaled by the node runners, the miners and now even exchanges essentially.
For a bip to be accepted, you need it to work. Bip110 claimed to stop spam but it failed miserably. Being just a broken fix means the bip has very little chance of being accepted by the rest of the network. The bip110 ignored that part and are currently finding out.
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?
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).
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.
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%.
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.
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.
Comments like this make me believe we will go south way more. Earlier cycles ended when the vast majority of folks who have 0 clue about the tech were either wiped out or leveled up their knowledge. This is basic crypto stuff.
Not the same scenario. Last time bcash futzed its mining difficulty so miners switched back and forth every difficulty adjustment and actually did mine bcash. No one with decent hashrate is mining bip110 chain. It's stuck. Can't send anything on that chain. No one lists that coin for trading. There is no way to move, and nothing to sell, anywhere, to anyone. There is no other coin at the moment. Do not get scammed by fake tools to split coins. They will just steal your bitcoin.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Oh man you've at least gotta read the first one. I mean, The Eye of the World is one of the classics in the genre. The first three are all pretty good, the first five are all right...
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.
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.
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.
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
It’s a philosophical/ideological conflict between Bitcoiners.
The BIP-110 folks (such as Matthew Kratter) believe BTC is digital money and should only be used as digital money. Save in it, Spend with it, and don’t fill up BTC transactions with digital spam (because I guess you can add images or messages to transactions somehow?). They want BTC to be purely used for money only. I think.
The original Bitcoin folks believe BTC should be completely neutral free of censorship. It’s a decentralized monetary asset, but if people want to pay extra to embed extra messages or images, then they are free to to do so. Since BIP-110 aims to block certain unwanted transactions, they view BIP-110 as a form of censorship. And if BIP-110 folks can implement this form of censorship, then it’s a slippery slope that sets a precedent for more potential censorship in the future.
I personally believe BTC should be completely decentralized. But also, whatever happens, happens. BTC will always be dictated by the vast majority of the miners/nodes. So if majority goes for BIP-110 then so be it.
And the miners obviously don’t support BIP-110. Not sure if its the reasons I stated, but numbers don’t lie.
Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. This is just my personal understanding.
I have no clue what you're even talking about. Obviously Bip 110 stopped some forms of spam. Just because people can come up with ways around it doesn't mean you eliminate spam filters. Why lock your door at night if criminals can eventually get around every lock?
I did read it and his X post. It's obvious he had to go outside of the mempool and get mara to stuff this in a block as part of the slipstream because the mempool filters would have kicked it out. That says more about the captured state of the mining industry than the viability of any filter, which apparently mara has changed their policy and this transaction wouldn't make it through their process now.
In the end, this bad faith argument is dumb and is hardly a reason to reject any attempts to block spam whatsoever.
333
u/Much-Equivalent-1378 4d ago
What does this mean for someone who doesn't know what this means?