There were three release clients before this v0.1.
Now that it's out there, we should get to see how many people will run it.
Here is @dathon_ohm's announcement on X:
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
There were three release clients before this v0.1.
Now that it's out there, we should get to see how many people will run it.
Here is @dathon_ohm's announcement on X:
ah, just go away already.
This is done and over, stillborn before even conceived.
These people are going to cause a hard-fork and fork themselves onto their own chain.
And they are chomping at the bit to do it, led by 'influencers' and bad arguments.
Incredible.
This is not a hard fork. Also you can "fork yourself" and you have money in both branches, so no risk for you actually (you can wait as long as you want and see who wins).
It's a hard fork, they just somehow think they're 'going to win'.
The bcashers thought the same
It's a soft fork.
A soft fork can still produce a chain split.
If miners do not enforce BIP 110, nodes running BIP 110 will fork off from the main chain in September.
Yeah, I know.
BIP-110 is much closer to Segwit than to BCH, given that Segwit was a softfork, while BCH was a hardfork.
True.
And also BCH enabled much bigger blocks, which hurts decentralization. Meanwhile BIP-110 aims to do the opposite by reducing block bloat caused by inscriptions.
So the comparison to BCH makes no sense.
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.
That’s not right. Inscriptions are stored in the witness section, so they do tend to increase block size. You can have only 1 MB of non-witness data, but blocks can be up to 4 MB if there is a lot of witness data.
Inscriptions were first popularized early 2023. Here is a chart of the 7-day average blocksize including that period:
Every Bitcoin transaction must have at least one output. Inscription transactions publish the data in the witness of an input, but they still must have an output. This is why they often have one output with minimal amount.
Transactions with OP_RETURN outputs need an input to fund the transaction, but they already have an output for the OP_RETURN.
Hi @Murch ! Thank you for your working on Bitcoin!!!
What I meant to say is that if people are concerned about the block size... why not just promote a block-size decrease in a soft-fork?
Or why not have a soft-fork to remove/reduce the segwit discount? Bip-110 does neither of these things!
Bip-110 doesn't do anything about 'runes' memecoins... it doesn't prevent any endless number of op_return-based-metaprotocols which spam the utxo set at low fee rates...
My understanding is that the bloating of the utxo set is a far greater risk than the bloating of blocks... which runes memecoins could still cause. Yet... bip-110 still allows 80+ byte op_returns at all!
Blocks might have the same weight but one look at a block explorer shows that blocks are not the same size in terms of bytes:
OP_RETURNs are not part of the UTXO set.
No they aren't... but someone can 'pretend' than an op_return creates a 'token' therefore 'pretending' that one op_return and lots of outputs... means lots of tokens. "Runes" memecoins do this but there are unlimited arbitrary possibilities.
Blocks are bigger due to the 'witness discount', witness data weighs less than transactional data
I'll run stats on sun/mon to inform y'all that there will be no activation this epoch 😂
You mean 55% activation, right? I thought this had an activation in September, regardless of adoption.
It can be activated early if at least 55% of blocks signal for it in one 2016 block period.
Right, but it activates in September even if that doesn't happen, right?
correct
You cannot really "activate regardless of adoption", but whatevs. We'll see.
I mean, those rules become active (i.e. activate) for anyone running that software in September.
For this version of the software, I suspect so yes (I haven't reviewed latest changes.)
According to Kratter, BIP-110 just keeps winning so apparently we better fall in line...
I am wondering something. If the mining pool coordinators are the ones setting the block template, are they the ones determining the signaling bits, not the clients?
The mining pools that use Stratum V1 yes. And that's probably a majority of the hashrate. It's this centralized unfortunately.
https://twiiit.com/dathon_ohm/status/2016582301568655459
Thanks for sharing. We are already over 4% of all listening nodes on the network, but there have not been any blocks signaling yet. Hopefully with this initial production release, we will see an increase in miner signaling.
Bitcoin is money!
Keep going Dathon.
Plebs love what you have been doing for bitcoin.
2026 will be the last year for the shitcoin core.
Interested in hearing your opinion on this @DarthCoin
Why do you need my opinion on this totally useless debate?
You guys are distracted with this debate, you are divided in tribes like sheeps without even noticing it.
You really want to know what I think about this? Ok fine, here me out:
IF YOU WANT TO FORK, FORK YOUR MOTHER.
I will be so happy to double my BTC like I did in 2017.
Please read this
#835285
Thanks, this helps me make up my mind. I'll run Knots with BIP 110.
Nice. more sats for me
Great news! Let's get the security improvement BIP-110 activated.
bip110.org
deleted by author