Why I’m Running BIP 110.

I recently heard @SteveSimple put it... well, simply: "BIP110 is the better set of consensus rules." That's it. That's what is comes down to. Glad to hear your take on it as well. 14:15 "The fight against fiat continues, just under different conditions." Spam on the network, an attempt to create mission creep and move Bitcoin away from monetary maximalism, is the manifestation of fiat in the protocol. BIP110 is a fight against fiat and the fight continues. Running BIP110.

@SteveSimple i just get so tired of the dialogue slipping on all the red herrings and derailed by non-rational bullshit. just wanted to put it out there for people to push on 🫡

@MrHodl that’s my thinking. always open to stronger more compelling arguments

A protocol is discriminatory by nature. That's not a bug it's the definition of what a protocol is. A protocol is a deliberate set of rules that distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable states, actions, or inputs. It sorts, filters, prioritizes, and excludes. Without that discrimination, it ceases to be a protocol and becomes noise or entropy. Coretards are confused. BIP-110 is the lesson they missed.

My rationale for running bip110 is the same, well done for getting this out there

thanks man all we can do. suits and plebs are still peers lol

I appreciate that you brought attention to how bastardized the terms "neutral" and "permissionless" became throughout the recent discourse.

“i’m a philosopher who works on ethics” ok opinion dismissed

that’s what i do you write code that’s what you do. i know you like technicals in your field i have technicals in my field too i didn’t give my opinion, as a technical matter i made a principled argument you can reply to it, or make ad hominems

it's a joke, calm down

What are your thoughts on Runes and the fact that BIP-110 does not stop this?

if it fits, it ships

Interesting perspective. Thank you.

Brilliant work good sir. 🧡🫡

Peer to peer 🫡

Thus far, and no further. 🫡

Really well said. I only see benefits for me and the vast majority of Bitcoiners with BIP-110.

Thanks. We are all thinking through this issue, and 110 is just the better protocol rules. An Apache has tighter tolerances than a honda civic. boundaries and limits are purpose driven

much respect to you sir

back at you, peer to peer 🫡

👍

Saying, “All else equal, tighter validity boundaries give an attacker fewer permissible avenues inside the rules. So, if I was an attacker, I’d rather attack non-bip110 chain.” Is like saying, “All else being equal a tank with a paint job should be more difficult to destroy than one without a paint job as there’s 1 more layer of material on the outer shell of the vehicle, making it more difficult to destroy than one without paint.” Bip110 does not make bitcoin more resilient to attack — in fact there’s a real argument about how it has fractured consensus and opened the largest political attack vector in the network’s history.

appreciate the feedback, i wouldn’t agree with the paint analogy. to stick with the tank, i think its just tighter tolerances. a more refined machine. i agree with you on the political attack vectors, i just see the suits as more compromised than the plebs imo

We’re not voting for a president in either “the suit or pleb” party FFS, and it’s absolutely retarded to simplify and out-group such as you are doing — makes you seem even less credible, beyond missing the technical reality of my tank analogy whether you agree with it or not. Bip110 doesn’t improve network resiliency or harden it to attack — this is just a fact.

i know its not suits vs plebs, we are all peers in bitcoin. I'm just saying the closer you are to the money printer, the more likely and susceptible one is to its corruption.

Then why you say it? Corrupt people will use Bitcoin. They will run nodes. Liars and cheats will.

I support your right to run whatever software you want Learn the difference between bitcoin consensus rules and policy changes for bitcoin adjacent software like Core 30 so you can make an informed decision Any transaction that is consensus valid can be accepted by miners

yes, i understand the BIP changes protocol limits lol i didn’t even talk about core in the video did u watch it?

Yes I watched it BIP-110 shifts spam to harmful carriers like UTXO-bloating methods/Stamps, won’t deter humans enough, and risks L2 collateral damage chain split risk, reduced neutrality, is temporary in nature And spam will still be consensus valid

Exactly why I’m running BIP-110. Well said 👏.

thanks 🤝🫡

"that is not how I fight something I genuinely believe hurts me" I don't believe it can hurt me. I am not bothering to URSF because I am absolutely confident that BIP110 does not and will not have majority miner support, and therefore the longest chain will not enforce BIP110.

that’s fine just note that your confidence is trust for me, i would want to verify when the music stops i have a chair. a URSF would guarantee you don’t have to trust the other miners

If 51% of miners were secretly colluding they could trigger a MASF at any moment without any warning and there's nothing I could do to stop that because I wouldn't know in advance to do a URSF

@AdamSimecka This was a sound, principled, level headed commentary on why one should run BIP110 and I’m better off for having listened to it.

🤝👏🙏

thanks man

Great points, Neal. I appreciate your conviction and reasoning for your choice, well said.

@big_casino48 thanks every action follows a choice 🫡

WHAT. A. GOAT!

peer to peer 🫡

fucc yeah🔥👍😎💗

thanks 🫡

Hello. I'm URSF.

hi, mad respect for opposing and not ignoring

I think ignoring will work fine, I just like to make Knotzis upset

well i’m not upset lol ignoring will 100% be fine if u just have a node. miners have worse odds

I mine

gl

Well well well

Thanks for making this video. I can say I'm in the same or similar boat as you. I don't see any real reason why I shouldn't support BIP110.

enumerate the “defensibility advantages”

its a principled argument, so i don’t have a particular number. if 110 cannot have less defensibilty, as its the same but tighter, then it can only be equally defensible or more defensible

parse this statement if 110 cannot have less defensibilty, as its the same but tighter, then it can only be equally defensible or more defensible sincerely - not trolling

tightening a parameter cannot make the network easier to attack so if it has any effect, in can only be in one direction. it’s either a ratchet that does nothing or helps.

1. tightening a parameter cannot make the network easier to attack it isn’t about making anything easier - it is about shifting incentives… transaction flow (fluid) - when you tighten a spigot but not close it - what happens? the velocity increases - spam redirects

do u not think there are people in the world threatened by bitcoin that need to destroy it? would pay any amount of money in war to end it? tell me, how does that “incentive” shift?

since you cant directly counter/rebut my analogy/assertion - i must conclude you hadn’t considered nor understand the actual problem… take all the time you need to think on it…

so you say. I responded by pointing out that motivated hostile actors dont respond to any economic incentives. i prioritize them as a threat. i don’t need time to think i have my priorities, you can have yours

The shot heard round the chain

A form of stance long forgotten

We only get one life to live. It’s not a bad idea to think about what ur doing 🤣

Exactly! I can't see any benefit in running non bip-110 either. Very well said sir!

Non-BIP-110 offers the peace of mind knowing that Bitcoin cannot be changed with a slim majority of miner support and a minority of node runner support. It reaffirms economic weight determining consensus and not astroturf'd sybil attacks changing rules. It's not pretending to solve a problem for 12 months at time; a snail's pace compared to the deployment of data encoding tactics.

if 110 changes the bitcoin protocol, longest/heaviest chain, then i only see people running what software they want to run. at what % it acrivates does seem important to me

@GrassFedBitcoin Great work. I see a lot of “experts” unable to act because they don’t understand purpose.

@GrassFedBitcoin the “technical” arguments presuppose purpose as they imagine it and act as if “neutrality” divorced bitcoin from purpose, but that’s just not true it’s 100% on the table to ask yourself why do you use bitcoin and how does the software serve u

-

I gave you my principles argument for my action. you can push on it or give me yours. if u don’t have one, its most likely the outsourced decision doesn’t align with ur interests. best verify u haven’t swallowed propaganda designed to get u to carry water for someone else

More gaslighting per usual. Here’s my Bitcoin-aligned principles vs yours.

Have fun forking off to your shitcoin managed by a single dev, with a known consensus bug, and no meaningful peer review

you can push on my argument or present your own for why you walk through the non-110 door

You want more than those 3 reasons? Those are insufficient? Known consensus bug kicking people off the chain should be more than sufficient alone.

put differently, those reasons marginal accidents of the two protocols what function does non-110 perform better than 110 that outweighs the tradeoff of defensibilty?

You can actually stay on the chain without a consensus bug. Idk, feels important

Now this this my flavor of autism Great video

I listened. You are free to run bip110. You may also run both. Im running a IBD on knots right now. But not to support it, to visually have the experience. Us on the coretard side do not need to run a URSF at all. Its not required. We continue the mainchain, no changes.

Great presentation @NealFlesher - @WalkerAmerica here is a good response for your BTC session today.

Thank you for explaining this so clearly for me.