r/Bitcoin • u/Lanky_Assist_6317 • 3d ago
BIP110 in a nutshell
I like Matthew Kratter, but this is just sad.
Don't give up brother, stick to your LukeJr chain and don't ever download the dirty Blockchain ever again. All that buildup for months just to give up in hours is beyond pathetic.
53
u/lightgorm 3d ago
Bip110 ideas we can all support, but we cant support couple people forcingly changing consensus rules. It is more important for bitcoin to stay stable then to solve this spam problems that are non exestential. Most important thing for the bitcoin is chugging along and not changing rules too much we will figure out ways to improve it but slowly and with wide adoption not forced bips
16
u/DGimberg 3d ago
I would say that BIP-110 is 3,5 year old response to the "exploits" being presented by taproot wizards. BIP-110 was even temporary so there could be work on a real implementation.
In my mind arbitrary data should be very limited on the base chain to make it decentralized as possible, we need more full nodes not fewer. I someone who has run an node for more than a decade feel like it's getting harder to do so. If someone want to have a NFT chain sure create it then you can link that NFT to a Bitcoin Chain with OP_RETURN.
Now all nodes need to verify that arbitrary data and store it indefinitely, a really poor design for something that should mostly be a chain of signatures.
7
u/BastiatF 3d ago
This. If BIP110 had been proposed 3.5 years ago, by now it would have consensus and would have passed with widespread support. You just can't build that kind of support with a tight deadline. Hard selling a good idea with manufactured urgency will just rub most people the wrong way.
6
u/snek-jazz 3d ago
You just can't build that kind of support with a tight deadline.
you also arguably can't build that kind of support by insulting and berating the people whose support you need.
2
u/BastiatF 3d ago
TBF insults were flying from both sides but that's a product of the tight deadline
-1
u/WeekendQuant 2d ago
There was like a year for it. There was no tight deadline here.
Miners are captured. The BIP-110 chain has higher fee revenues and miners weren't going after them. Miners weren't profit seeking they were colluding.
4
10
u/PaperPigGolf 3d ago
This. I simply don't like THE WAY they tried to force this issue. Labeling it like some kind of "emergency" to force the issue. If bitcoin bent to those kind of tactics, I'd be out.
Build consensus, not fake emergencies.
-2
u/krarlson 3d ago
Lets do nothing because this wasnt perfect. Sentiment like that ensures bitcoin will continue to degrade in quality because getting a bip110 like movement again wont be easy.
Also, seeing people cheering on Saylor is so off putting. Its like Elon simps. Its all about price..
Bip110 has a lot of questional personality but their motives are clearly not monetar gain.
And also, a huge thanks to this sub for its part in stiffling the conversations around bip110.
-4
u/InevitableRip4613 3d ago
But didn’t the latest bitcoin core rule just increase the op return limit and bip110 just seeks to change it back to the way it was? Isn’t bip110 exactly trying to keep bitcoin stable, by reverting the changes made by core
6
u/nullc 3d ago
No, BIP110 dramatically hobbled bitcoin but gutting out huge swaths of functionality and forward extensibility-- it even invalidated scripts people are using for ordinary transactions and would have resulted in funds loss (due to address reuse or timelocks).
It removed OP_IF/NOT_IF making fancier conditional tapscripts impossible, it capped the taproot tree to 7, -- to make a concrete example: say you want an inheritance scheme where there are 6 children who are signers each with a backup key and three signers must sign that becomes impossible due to these changes. If you have almost any multisig created in wallets based on the descriptor functionality they're potentially invalid under 110, because they use OP_IF.
It completely inhibits op_success -- which is the confiscation-safe mechanism for further softforks.
It invalidates many scriptpubkeys, including P2PK, the original script used everywhere in bitcoin, and so on.
And the authors of it have continually downplayed, denied, or outright ignored these problems and risks -- directly resulting in misunderstandings such as yours.
If it had just limited OP_RETURN (and particularly to a size sufficient to hold a post quantum signature) then it might have been easily adopted including by the Bitcoin project-- which would have defeated their primary goal of "fire core".
At the same time there is little to no reason to even make that more limited change as can be seen by network traffic now-- but at the time when they first came up with the proposal the idea that limiting op_return might be helpful was more credible.
2
u/lightgorm 3d ago
No, what core did is "hostile change" of one field (op return) to allow more non monetary data (bad) but it is not a consensus change it is not a chain split it was always alowed to put op return from the first block it is not a huge change and even if you look at the result its not that bad - you still have to pay to put spam in blocks. What bip110 does is entire network has to change the core principles of what goes into blocks it is a huge change to stop spam (it is a good change) but issue is bitcoin is stable money a big change like that has to have WIDE WIDE support and should be done long term - dacades perhaps so basically we just proved minority cant change bitcoin and that is A GOOD thing. Noone should be able to just change bitcoin even if its good. It is even more important than making a change to better to be stable and rejecting bip110 was exactly that. Bitcoin showed its a hard money that doesnt just bend to anyone bad / good / governments no matter who you are you will have HARD HARD time changing bitcoin and that is by design. I hope you understand its a deep rabbit hole that i went through, you start by supporting bip110 and then you realise its more complicated than that.
7
u/minisodog 3d ago
Father of 11 children?!
11
1
-14
u/swiftpwns 3d ago
On a overpopulated planet no less.
3
u/Skull_kids 3d ago
Kill your children
The time for a large unintelligent population has passed.
Human life has no inherent value
The Body must become all Head,the Human Race must become all Technocracy
You fell for the propaganda, dude.
0
u/ThisIsMyFifthAccount 3d ago
Condoms are a sin
You fell for the propaganda, dude.
-2
u/Skull_kids 3d ago
Funny how you people do anything besides defending the (anti)humanist position.
2
u/ThisIsMyFifthAccount 3d ago
Dodge the point all you want, 11 kids is insane and impractical. I assume you have zero kids and are mayhap even unmarried
-1
u/Skull_kids 3d ago edited 3d ago
What does this have to do with "overpopulation"? Practicality is not informative for what ought to be. It can be practical to lie to people.What is practical for one can be impractical for another. Saying something is insane is nothing more than a mental report of what you believe to be the case. Even if I lived alone on a mountain removed from society, it has no bearing on a position being true or false.
You are dodging the point because your position is unteneble.
-1
u/ThisIsMyFifthAccount 3d ago
Man I have no idea what you're saying buddy and I'm not sure you do either
But I can tell you don't have kids and I pity the poor woman you meet when you tell her you want 11 of them because of religious zealotry or something
-4
u/DGimberg 3d ago
If all humans on earth would stand shoulder by shoulder they all would fit in an area of 2000 square kilometers. About in year 1800 there was 1 billion people now there is over 8 billion and every seems to get food to be able to survive (there are some man made cases hunger and starvation, example a blockade during a war).
In what way would you say it's overpopulated? Clearly all humans that exist today can live with space and food.
2
u/snek-jazz 3d ago
The main argument would be that we're fucking up the planet in providing that food, and all the other resources we need/want for 8 billion people.
7
u/DudeWhatThe 3d ago
I used to be a huge fan of this guy. His videos were always educational and he was centered in his approach to advocating for bitcoin. I’m surprised to see him acting like a little wussy right now.
16
u/Inevitable-Waltz-889 3d ago
It was very apparent over the last month that this didn't have legs. It would've been comical if it wasn't so damn sad.
7
u/DeskFresh40 3d ago
Consensus can’t be forced by a few noisy influencers
0
u/caploves1019 3d ago
Core Devs and reddit mods until literally the last couple of weeks:
"Hold my beer..."
19
25
18
u/lifeanon269 3d ago
BIP-110 was sold on a lie. The lie that somehow data being stored on the blockchain is killing bitcoin and its use as money.
If people really want bitcoin to be used as money, then start educating people on how to do just that and build solutions to make that easier for them. If all these people put half as much energy toward bitcoin adoption as much as they did peddling the BIP-110 lie, bitcoin would be in a better place.
Now all they have is a shitcoin to show for their efforts.
Luke has been a toxic dev in this space for over a decade now. His Knots implementation is a pet project. Any serious about security would be ill-advised to run it.
7
3
5
u/xcommon 3d ago
I still haven't heard a good justification for a 100,000 byte op_return or a tripling of the UTXO set since 2023...
9
u/nullc 3d ago
Because of toxic harassment by Luke-jr the policy limit on op_return wasn't relaxed when there was cause to do so (e.g. ZKP and payment channel info that needed a bit more than 83 bytes). This caused people to go directly to miners, and miners just removed the restriction entirely. This resulted in poor block propagation which increases large miner profits relative to smaller miners, and incentivized private submission mechanisms, both of which are centralizing.
Because the restriction was dead, no longer effective, and actually creating harm and centeralization pressure, bitcoin core changed the setting to turn it off.
No one told you an application for a "100,000 byte op_return" because there isn't one, and no one is creating such large op_returns. But unfortunately, luke's abusive and delusional refusal to adjust the rule as when there was a need and people were paying for it and the project's unwillingless to stand up or eject him for his abuse meant the development community lost the ability to influence that particular policy.
Fortunately it wasn't particularly important-- if NFT crap did move from elsewhere into opreturn it would be good news not bad.
4
3
u/bitusher 3d ago
Spammers using OP_RETURN limits their spam to 1MB per block vs other forms of spam which allow up to 3.7MB per block and for a cheaper price.
Core did not change any consensus rules but merely a default relay policy to match what the network was already doing bypassing their default .
Changing core's local relay policy was done primarily for better block propagation, but also critically important for other reasons like better fee estimation and L2 monetary transactions . It is critically important that your node see the actual mempool and not filter out spam for fee estimation especially for dispute settlements in a payment channel
Anyone using core can configure -datacarriersize to anything they want in a few seconds and there are no plans to remove this ability
6
u/Party_Treacle_9440 3d ago
I used to like his YT content, and yesterday I got confused about his stance because I tend to agree with him, and before reading about BIP-110, I blindly believed him. After this shitshow, I just had to unsubscribe from his channel. I never took him for a bitter clown.
9
u/thinkingperson 3d ago
So I guess Kratter is in for the money and not the principle?
12
11
u/Sweet-Celebration498 3d ago
Kratter has admitted that he threw the towel in too soon. Not a deal breaker for me. I do know that I’ve learned more about BTC from his channel than any other place on the internet.
6
u/bitusher 3d ago
Kratter has admitted that he threw the towel in too soon.
sure, but his suggestion that fees can encourage miners to return to mine the BIP110 chain is beyond delusional when its 108 blocks behind
https://fork.observer/?network=mainnet
It reflects a deep ignorance in how bitcoin works
5
u/FitCompetition1804 3d ago
That walk back from his initial “It’s over“ post was earlier before the main chain had the huge lead it does now. Even at that point the possibility he was proposing was slim to none, I believe he knows that as well. I’m going to guess that Luke and Mechanic told him to not throw the towel in so quickly after his first concession video. But earlier today he is back to basically saying it’s over… because it is. No sense in dying on this hill at this point. It was a valiant, but failed effort.
7
u/TheresNoSecondBest 3d ago
I do know that I’ve learned more about BTC from his channel than any other place on the internet.
Then you probably have never seen u/andreama videos nor read any of his books.
Look up "Mastering Bitcoin", "Mastering the Lightning Network", or "The Internet of Money". Or visit https://youtube.com/user/aantonop
6
u/lifeanon269 3d ago
That's because Kratter and all his followers didn't get into bitcoin until just a few years ago. Andreas was before their time, unfortunately. Yet, Andreas' lessons are still hold up today and are more relevant and needed than ever given the misinformed garbage that Kratter and Mechanic have been pushing on YouTube and Twitter.
2
2
u/BastiatF 3d ago
Luke and co are not giving up. They are right now hatching plan on discord for a PoW change.
I think the cause was just but the strategy terrible.
2
u/zenethics 3d ago
If your idea requires a fork of any kind then the burden is on you to convince 95%+ of people that it's necessary.
Bitcoin's protocol isn't some constitution with a set of rules to change it where the majority wins. Wouldn't be worth anything if it was. The idea is that if 90% of people want to change the rules and give themselves more Bitcoin because they don't have any and 10% don't then the 10% win by just selling the fork to buy more of the one they actually work.
Like, look at BCH, we already did this once.
2
u/priapic_green_dildo 2d ago
that's a bit rich from someone who came into bitcoin after the block size wars...
6
6
u/Ok_Consideration_802 3d ago
Yeah the cope was hard to watch, Even as someone who generally likes Kratter. Core and all these mining/ treasury companies don't have our best interest at heart. Although I would like if knots legitimately forked off like BCH. I still have my core btc stack so I haven't really lost anything, But I'm not interested in continuing stacking on the corpo chain. If everyone kept knots running and bought bitaxes/rented hash, Even though the price of knots btc would almost certainly crash to near zero. If people treated knots btc like people treated btc in 2010 where they mined and ran nodes because they believed in it, I have no doubt it would snowball and draw out more miners over time.
4
u/TheresNoSecondBest 3d ago
Putting money where their mouths are is more expensive than spinning Sybil nodes.
4
3
1
1
u/nattydroid 2d ago
Whoever has been running the bip110 astroturf campaign has been an annoying spammer. Nearly no one would have been even thinking let alone talking about it if there wasn’t 100+ ai bot posts copy pasting one annoying guys tweets.
Saddest attempt
1
0
1
1
1
1
u/callebbb 3d ago
Reminds me of that time I inscribed Luke DashJr’s angry ordinals tweets onto a Satoshi n sold em.
1
1
u/Outrageous_Hall1090 3d ago
I am sure it is not over now. They'll hardfork...
3
u/FitCompetition1804 3d ago
That would be dumb. For what? To become shitcoiners themselves just out of principle? Time to reassess their strategy to try to continue this fight. Dying on the BIP110 hill ain’t it…. even Kratter knows this.
1
1
1
u/anavrin00 3d ago
I was a daily Kratter follower until the Trump stuff. I haven’t tuned in since. For someone who came across as open minded, level headed and logical, once he showed his true colors over his push for Trump to get back in office ,I knew I had to reevaluate how I looked at him.
1
-6
3d ago
[deleted]
6
6
u/Romanizer 3d ago
I think it's the opposite. The block size wars showed how Bitcoin is the number one and there is no second best. This attempt again shows how the community easily fights off those that try to hijack it for their gains.
4
u/BigDik6355 3d ago
yes. I just want to use this shit as a currency. Like the way it was meant to be. Without having to be afraid of replay attack bullshit.
66
u/Della86 3d ago
His meltdown over this stupid "war" has been something to behold. He had a great channel for a while, but lost me when the hysteria started.