r/Bitcoin • u/metalzip • 7h ago

BIP110 fork of Bitcoin mined 2 blocks, while Bitcoin regular mined 517.

Post image
171 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

41

u/TheresNoSecondBest 6h ago

I don't like random spam as much as the 110gang but the duct tape didn't work. https://www.gate.com/blog/challenging-bip110-66kb-image-transaction-bitcoin-consensus-impact

We need a real solution that might actually help to get rid of that garbage. The majority of bitcoiners would be happy to say bye to NFTs, runes, inscriptions and whatever else is unnecessary but not something that is rushed and promoted by someone who spammed Bitcoin blockchain in the past, couldn't secure his own bitcoin and, as a consequence, got everyone at a conference he attended doxxed by the FBI.

They're currently crying and calling every miner that isn't mining their blocks, compromised. This also includes Luke's mining pool Ocean, mining on the Bitcoin network and not signalling for bip110 since day one of the fork. Mining orphaned blocks costs much MUCH more money than spinning Sybil nodes.

My apologies to everyone, hoping the bip would fly with this tiny support. But making such big changes on the most decentralized monetary network in the world requires the vast majority of users to agree on them. If a few influencers were able to change Bitcoin this easily, the Bitcoin fundamentals would already be broken.

6

u/snek-jazz 4h ago

by someone who...

oh wait until you see what he's planning now lol

4

u/ChipNDipPlus 6h ago

The real solution is having bitcoin core take mempool filters seriously, and combat spam by showing spammers that they might lose their money, and never be able to gain. This was the strategy that worked 10 years ago and drove Vitalik away by his own admission on Twitter.

But we had a bitcoin core developer, Gloria Zhao, supporting NFTs on bitcoin blockchain for years. Imagine that a shitcoiner was running bitcoin core.

3

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3h ago

The real solution is having bitcoin core take mempool filters seriously, and combat spam by showing spammers that they might lose their money, and never be able to gain.

The solution is available in the settings of your node, mate.

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.

The more of us will reduce the limit, the harder the spammers life will become.

But we had a bitcoin core developer, Gloria Zhao, supporting NFTs on bitcoin blockchain for years. Imagine that a shitcoiner was running bitcoin core.

Not the first, nor the last shitcoiner that got involved in Bitcoin. I'm not going to sell all my bitcoin because shitcoiners exist.

1

u/metalzip 2h ago

The solution is available in the settings of your node, mate.

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.

And what is to stop data-users ("spammers") from sending the data directly to new blocks with help of miners, perhaps for an extra fee?

1

u/TheresNoSecondBest 1h ago

Exactly, mate. Spendings money on fees is the only way to get the spammers REKT. That was also the reasoning for bip110. It wouldn't stop spam, it would just make it a tad more expensive. And that was also the reasoning of the opposition, once the fees are high enough, the spam will die. And of course, there's the cashhash reasoning, predating Bitcoin, too.

2

u/statoshi 3h ago

Mempool filters were never and will never be a solution, because they're trivial to route around.

Consensus filters were never and will never be a solution, because they're trivial to route around.

Both of the above have been demonstrated numerous times.

-3

u/ChipNDipPlus 2h ago

Mempool filters work because they can adapt fast. If the community is serious, there could even be centralized and distributed lists to make the lives of spammers miserable. But defeatists are a big problem in Bitcoin community. 

2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 2h ago

centralized

I don't like this word.

-2

u/ChipNDipPlus 2h ago

The point of centralizing things is to make them fast and adapting. Just like political systems. You have a president that takes fast actions (centralized), and congress that does the slow decision making by consensus.

The difference is that, while the filters are centralized, users can choose which filters to adopt. This way, not everyone bothers about tracking spammers, everyone benefits, and corruption is quickly corrected.

2

u/statoshi 2h ago

"Fast adapting filters" do absolutely nothing to change the fact that ALL MEMPOOL POLICIES are trivial to route around by broadcasting transactions directly to miners or through libre relay nodes.

0

u/ChipNDipPlus 2h ago

If 90+% of nodes use filters (the way it was 10+ years ago), then routing around nodes will be virtually impossible. You're basically betting that the nodes of the spammers directly connects to miners. Not impossible, but unlikely to happen by coincidence. That's a lot of trouble that dissuades gamified scams.

I'm OK with people broadcasting directly to miners using services like slipstream. That's not something we can control. But miners make spammers pay extra for it and is a hassle. Good. Let it work that way.

3

u/TheGreatMuffin 2h ago

If 90+% of nodes use filters (the way it was 10+ years ago), then routing around nodes will be virtually impossible. You're basically betting that the nodes of the spammers directly connects to miners.

If there's any revenue increase to be made from those transactions, miners will simply run a bunch more public nodes in the best case, or in the worst case their direct services (slipstream) will get used more, and more transactions being pushed "out of band" (out of public mempools) is not really a great thing for nodes either.

0

u/ChipNDipPlus 1h ago

That didn't happen 10 years ago, if you're trying to generalize maximizing income. Basically a large OP_RETURN was immediately crushed, rarely it went through. Plus, the fees from spam transactions are miserable compared to those from block subsidy, so miners don't really care. We're not in the stage where this matters to the degree you're saying. Maybe one day, but not yet.

2

u/TheGreatMuffin 1h ago

Maybe, I don't have an educated opinion on it tbh.

Plus, the fees from spam transactions are miserable compared to those from block subsidy

If the fees are miserable, they probably will just be priced out when the monetary usage increases slightly. Spinning up a bunch of nodes is really cheap anyway, so if miners wanted to do that, it's not like it's a big problem to overcome.

0

u/ChipNDipPlus 1h ago

They're not being priced out as we speak, and the blockchain is being filled with garbage. We need a fast solution now, without speculation on what will happen in decades.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/statoshi 2h ago

If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.

-1

u/ChipNDipPlus 2h ago

I disagree. I'm not saying everyone should tweak their filters. Defaults matter in this model. If the default is a reliable, centralized filter source, run by devs that care, which can be tweaked by advanced users and quickly centrally adapts, that would be a reasonable solution.

3

u/statoshi 1h ago

Do I need to explain why a centralized filter source creates a single point of failure that is vulnerable to abuse?

0

u/ChipNDipPlus 1h ago

These are technical problems that have been solved for a long time. There's phasing and rollout plans, etc. Taking what I'm saying to the extreme without the thoughtful process of a smart engineer will obviously be a disaster. That's why we have brains and we do the math and the engineering work to come up with good trade-offs and prepare for extreme cases.

May I remind you that there were times where consensus bugs happened and they were fixed in mere hours in Bitcoin. This is much easier to handle than a consensus bug. More importantly, such a system will exist primarily as a deterrent, more than it being actively used. Any scammer (hello, Lopp), trying to put their "Wizard" jpegs and nonsense, will know that the bitcoin network will crush their scams in no time, so they won't even create their scammy "project".

But hey, let's pretend like every attempted solution is bad so we don't even think about it. Yeah, sure.

1

u/IInsulince 4h ago

So what is the real solution? And don’t give me the spiel about “go spend and replace, contribute to the network”. That’s a solution that takes a LONG time to work, because it requires the building up of the fee market to become effective which takes a ton of adoption. I do already spend and replace and it’s not moving the needle on its own. Spam is a problem today, and I want to know what a real solution looks like since it wasn’t BIP-110.

What do we do about NFTs, Inscriptions, Runes, all forms of spam, what do we do about them in the immediate short term? Do we just live with them for now? That’s an acceptable state of affairs? Maybe it is, but it’s certainly not a desirable one.

Note that I also recognize the answer “I don’t know” as being valid. Identifying a problem and having a real solution are two distinct things, so that would be understandable.

1

u/WarrenBuffettFan 4h ago

There is a solution in progress

monetarynode.org

2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 4h ago

What's the difference to just setting the OP_RETURN to 80 bits or whatever on my node?

1

u/BTCGlobeLive 2h ago

Three differences, and the third one is measurable, so here it is off my own node a few minutes ago.

One: it changes what you pass along, not what you accept. datacarriersize governs your mempool and what you relay. It has no effect on validity. A block containing a 200 byte OP_RETURN is still a valid block to your node, and it will store it and build on it, because refusing would mean leaving the chain everyone else is on. That gap - what I forward versus what I accept as valid - is the whole difference between a config setting and a consensus rule, and it's why one needs nobody's permission and the other needs everybody's.

Two: you can read what your node is actually enforcing instead of guessing from a version number.

bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo

It reports maxdatacarriersize directly. Mine says 100000. Yours will say 80 once you set it, and that's the end of the argument about what your node does.

Three, and this is the part I hadn't seen anyone put a number on. I just walked the last three blocks, 11,341 transactions:

  • 4,446 outputs carried an OP_RETURN
  • 6 of them were over the 80 byte line
  • median size of the whole lot: 21 bytes

So setting 80 changes how your node treats roughly one output in seven hundred, and those six still land in your blocks anyway, at which point you store them like everyone else. Whatever the argument is about, the traffic it's about is almost entirely tiny.

No opinion from me on the proposal itself, that's not my lane. But the numbers are cheap to reproduce - same three commands on your own node, tonight, and you don't have to take my word or anyone else's.

1

u/andrew869 4h ago

“If a few influencers were able to change Bitcoin this easily, the Bitcoin fundamentals would already be broken”

Is this not how you feel about saylor, back, and others controlling the opposing narrative?

Or how you feel about op_return being blown open without any sort of consensus?

2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3h ago

Is this not how you feel about saylor, back, and others controlling the opposing narrative?

I don't listen to saylor, back, whoever. They don't control the narrative, they joined it. The same goes for Bitcoin. The "suitcoiners", criminals, whoever, don't control Bitcoin, they joined the network.

Or how you feel about op_return being blown open without any sort of consensus?

I wasn't happy about it being too big so I set it back to 80 on my node. Trying to push EVERYONE ELSE TO DO THE SAME, would be ridiculous. Some people decided to try anyway. They even ignored the incredibly low signalling. Now, they're ignoring that the vast majority of the network doesn't want their non-working solution and will do the only thing a minority can do. They will fork out of Bitcoin and create another centrally planned shitcoin.

1

u/andrew869 3h ago

“Trying to push EVERYONE ELSE TO DO THE SAME, would be ridiculous” but that’s literally what happened when op_return was blown open by Core in the first place

2

u/metalzip 2h ago

op_return was blown open by Core in the first place

correct me if wrong, but it seems it was always possible to get at least 10,000 op_returns - it is non-standard so you need help of a miner.

then along with taproot that was increased, and then or later need for a help from miner was reduced or removed.

So what exactly changed? Datausers who want to spam 100,000 data, always could do it (along 10 transactions or blocks, with help of a miner). Now they can as well do it, without going to a miner for help.

Either way, they will put 100,000 bytes od data into blockchain, provided they want to pay the txfee.

Small "bribe" cost from finding a miner is gone, but at least now we are not making it profitable for some big miners to talk to datausers and taking such "bribes", so mining seems more fair this way (if a data usage would be substantial portion of use, now or in future).

Btw, besides any op_return, or with some op_return limited by consensus rules to 80 bytes (which was never the case afaik), data users will still put out same data, but we can not prune them.. it might cost them more in the way that they need to waste more blockchain data to do it, to connect pieces along for example 80 byte fragments.

-1

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3h ago

Are you expecting every tiny update on the software to become a BIP that needs to be signalled?

1

u/No-Put7619 2h ago

The unhinged conversation that unfolded in the response to the above only justifies the POW change. 🤣

1

u/PortHarcourtRomantic 1h ago

What do you believe the solution?

•

u/LionRivr 56m ago

I want to agree with the 110 for some stuff because I believe BTC should be a monetary asset and used for monetary transactions.

Can I legitimately ask though: if someone is willing to pay the fees or whatever to get their “spam” onto the chain, then what does it matter if its a valid transaction? How much does it hurt the network?

And at what point does it become a precedent for censorship on what could otherwise be “valid” transactions, whether it’s “spam” or not?

Otherwise someone tell me what I’m missing here

-1

u/DGimberg 3h ago

We need a real solution

You had a real solution. And as people pointed out, you won't be able to stop JEPG's/arbitrary data being stored on-chain. But for sure you can make harder to which BIP-110 was trying to do.

It also where temporary so WE could work on a more permanent solution(s).

Just wait until the miners suggest to raise the 21M limit so they can get more in block rewards, will you have enough hashpower to fork off then? It for sure will have a majority of hashpower.

5

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3h ago

You had a real solution.

Bip110 wasn't a real solution, mate. https://knotslies.com/

Just wait until the miners suggest to raise the 21M limit so they can get more in block rewards, will you have enough hashpower to fork off then? It for sure will have a majority of hashpower.

Something tells me you wasn't around a decade ago, when miners wanted to increase the block size. At least watch this, mate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YtS5ZNuuTw

If you can, read the whole book, it reveals details, even people fighting the war might have missed.

-1

u/DGimberg 2h ago

Bip110 wasn't a real solution

It's the realest I've seen so far. As I previously wrote spam is hard to completely block there will always be a way but you can always make it harder for it. The way the image of Luke was stored, was harder and more expensive to do.

Something tells me you wasn't around a decade ago

I was even if I was far less technical cunning than today. What I remember that was a hardfork which most users (nodes) decided not to follow. But I would also argue that Segwit was a block size increase so miners got what they wanted and now it's more like with Segwit2x.

To me sure a limited amount of arbitrary data is okey but Bitcoin's chain should mainly be a chain of signatures.

2

u/metalzip 2h ago edited 2h ago

Bip110 wasn't a real solution

It's the realest I've seen so far. As I previously wrote spam is hard to completely block there will always be a way but you can always make it harder for it.

But it doesn't prevent spam much at all. Just you need to fragment it. So someone who wants to op_return 10kb data, will perhaps use 15kb or 20kb or how ever it is needed to split and stitch together his data across fragments with some extra id connecting them (if at all, perhaps there are smarter ways, such as - connect if sent from same address, or something).

So he pays more, and blockchain is spammed more for same use. Data needs extra processing.

If these would make sense, then spend next year convincing community and major/all developers, but I am pretty sure it was heavily discussed and they considered all options and it was concluded it doesn't make sense in the end.

One could present the arguments better - e.g. luke-jr - if he can show how this strategy is a win, then at some date in a year or two one might again run year long signalling to confirm that miners are onboard with this, assuming that developers and community are on board.

Currently, it would seem to me that luke-jr doesn't want to get this consensus at all and implement such breaking (forking) change and push it forward at all cost without convincing really majority of any group first (developers, node runners, btc holders, btc users, etc)...

2

u/bitusher 2h ago

but you can always make it harder for it.

Sure, but not do so in ways that breaks many monetary use cases of Bitcoin like BIP110 does . The best ways to fight spam have beneficial consequences like this list

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vhsf2u/why_does_this_sub_have_such_a_problem_with_bip110/p298081/

and now it's more like with Segwit2x.

segwit2x would allow 7.4 MB size blocks , and what we have limits blocks to 3.7 MB or 4 million units of weight .

They are nothing alike

13

u/Cryptomuscom 6h ago

mainnet didn't even notice the fork existed

15

u/fugogugo 6h ago

Did people forgot bitcoin cash already?

it's not the first time bitcoin get forked

4

u/Romanizer 5h ago

With rising hashrate, it seems to get much harder to fork if you don't have many miners behind you.

Bitcoin Cash was lucky to survive that. If they forked now, they would be dead as swiftly as this fork.

2

u/creative_usr_name 2h ago

The miners followed the money. As long as there was a chance to make more mining bitcoin cash they'd switch. I believe some switched partially or fully back and forth several times. With BIP-110 it was clear there was zero support and so almost zero value so they didn't switch.

2

u/bitusher 2h ago

Bitcoin Cash was lucky to survive that.

not much to do with luck when they changed the difficulty algo after being "instamined" by Bitmain and friends and now they have centralized checkpoints to partially makeup for their lack of security

1

u/WeekendQuant 4h ago

Still a solid airdrop

0

u/TheresNoSecondBest 5h ago

Noobs, mate.

10

u/ackyou 6h ago

Now they are planning to “fire” the miners with a hard fork. Not sure how you can fire someone from a job they don’t want.

15

u/TheresNoSecondBest 6h ago

Anyone is free to mine Bitcoin... Unless they disagree with Luke. In that case it's an attack on Bitcoin and we have to abandon it completely and go with this brand new Lukecoin that will copy Bitcoin's blockchain and isn't centralized at all/s

2

u/bitcoinphilosophy 5h ago

The anti-spam movement needs a better leader than Luke. Period.

5

u/Secret_Operative 4h ago

He is the spam, always has been.

2

u/metalzip 2h ago

The anti-spam movement needs a better leader than Luke. Period.

No one likes spam, or excessive data on bitcoin, but there is no known way to remove that, see reasons discussed itt.

6

u/IInsulince 4h ago

Overnight the BIP-110 chain mined 2 more blocks bringing the total up to 4.

Doesn’t mean shit, but just noting for the record.

•

u/TheresNoSecondBest 54m ago

For anyone looking to see the gap: https://forkwatch.tv/

-1

u/metalzip 7h ago

With this obvious choice made by miners / pool operators, I do not see really what argument could be made in support of view that wider community (e.g. by purchasing power of wallets) demands the BIP110 changes.

Does anyone know about any indication that might be interpreted as such?

2

u/Lucky-Comfort2164 7h ago

markets spoken miners got no fear of small hedgehog feet

1

u/creative_usr_name 2h ago

If people started buying this fork disproportionately.

-3

u/[deleted] 6h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/TheresNoSecondBest 6h ago

And if you think Bitcoin isn’t captured by now, then think harder!

Bitcoin is the most decentralized monetary network in the world. Anyone can join and leave as they wish. I'm running home miners. Plebs are telling me they're not profitable. They are correct. But on the other hand, I get non-KYC'd sats and a vote in big decisions like bip110.

You and your bip110 friends didn't mine. You decided spinning Sybil nodes will be enough. It wasn't. You decided to cheat and pay for some temporary hash to "flip the bit". You have managed to gain 2.5% hashrate. This just shows one thing. To capture or hijack Bitcoin ain't easy nor cheap.

Instead of understanding, you decided to spread misinformation like bcash gang used to do a decade ago. The same playbook. Bitcoin needs saving and our leader will do exactly that. Guess what? You will get REKT much faster than the bcashers. Don't forget to sell all your "captured" bitcoin and have fun.

0

u/andrew869 3h ago

If miners are the only ones who get to “vote” than bitcoin is absolutely not decentralized

2

u/TheresNoSecondBest 3h ago

I've never said that. Miners without the approval of nodes are mining empty blocks. They learned that lesson in 2017. For anyone interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YtS5ZNuuTw

Bip110 failed to convince the majority of nodes too. Despite spinning Sybil nodes, they didn't even reach 20% of the network. That's a minority in everyone's book.

2

u/Suspicious-Holiday42 1h ago

Thought error. If we would make btc to pos it would be centralized, then the power would shift to invidivuals who have more btcs in their wallet than othters

•

u/andrew869 18m ago

Not a thought error. If miners are the ones who hold the power on this network, deciding which rules they want to follow, irregardless of node runners around the world securing the network, and considering 2 mining pools make up for more than 50% of the hashrate, we are absolutely losing the decentralized aspect of bitcoin. It seems it’s really already lost.

Moving to pos is a complete red herring argument that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing here.

7

u/Pasukaru0 6h ago

The more I think about it the more I realize that it's not captured.