Someone must have suddenly realized they should be supporting BIP110.

I recall someone showing me this technique about two or three years ago in a coffee shop. I'm sure there are many more vulnerabilities out there.

Don't worry. Elonmok is working diligently to embed this technology into people's heads. Once it becomes widespread, computer neck problems will soon become a thing of the past. https://neuralink.com

Potatoes?

No

when polls support?

Can't answer. I don't have enough knowledge. What's Marmot? What's NIP17?

Men see this picture ... differently.

Maybe that's just a Bluetooth vibrator 🤣

Then your assumption is the self-fulfilling prophecy that guarantees capture. You acknowledge 23% run Knots (up from 1% in 2024). You admit Core v30 was merged against 93 NACKs. You concede PR #32406 benefited Citrea (per Todd). Yet you assume economic weight stays with Core because... reasons? That's not analysis - that's Stockholm syndrome. "The abuser has always had power, therefore the abuser will always have power." If Plan B Forum, Bitcoin Magazine, and OGs like you actually ran Knots instead of predicting defeat, the economic majority would shift. The "failure mode" you predict only happens if opinion leaders keep validating Core's capture while claiming to oppose it. You can't simultaneously hate spam, refuse to run the software that filters it, and claim Bitcoin is "captured." You're not a hostage - you're a volunteer in Core's data landfill. The economic majority follows credibility. If the anti-spam camp capitulates to Core v30, they deserve to lose. Run Knots. Make the assumption false.

He sort of did it 😬

makes sophisticated arguments, but his core thesis - that BIP-110 will fail because miners rationally won't orphan the longest chain - misses the point of economic node sovereignty. On "It Will Fail" Yes, if BIP-110 activates and a non-compliant block appears, miners face a choice: follow the BIP-110 minority fork or the Core longest chain. Giacomo assumes they follow hash rate. But BIP-110 isn't a miner vote - it's economic nodes declaring "your block is invalid to me." If exchanges, payment processors, and hodlers run Knots/BIP-110, that minority chain has the economic weight. Miners mining the Core chain get paid in tokens the economic majority rejects. The "rational" choice follows price, not hash rate. Giacomo admits he doesn't run Core v30. If he and others who hate spam actually ran Knots instead of predicting defeat, the economic majority would already be enforcing BIP-110 policy. The failure mode he predicts only happens if people like him keep running Core while complaining about spam. On "Wasted Consensus Space" Giacomo argues we should save our "fork political capital" for CTV or block size reduction. This is backwards. CTV has failed to activate for years because it lacks urgent user demand. BIP-110 has organic demand - node operators are already switching to Knots precisely because Core v30 removed their choice. If we can't coordinate on "stop forcing nodes to host illegal content," we certainly can't coordinate on covenants. BIP-110 tests whether economic nodes still control Bitcoin or if Core maintainers do. That's not a waste - it's a prerequisite for any future change. On the "Fake Emergency" Giacomo says spam is decreasing (post-ordinals). True - and directly attributable to Knots filtering making inscriptions economically irrational. The emergency isn't "spam is winning." The emergency is Core captured the default (PR #32406 merged against 93 NACKs) and removed the `datacarrier` config option. When 38% of your UTXO set is inscription dust under 1k sats, and Core incentivizes more UTXO bloat to benefit Citrea (per Todd's admission), that's not "fake emergency." That's ongoing capture. Waiting until nodes require 128GB RAM to validate is too late. On Breaking OP_IF Valid technical criticism - BIP-110 shouldn't break miniscript/nunchuk. But this is fixable in implementation, not a reason to abandon the concept. The PR is still open; feedback improves it. Giacomo conflates "current draft has bugs" with "concept is bad." The Real Disagreement Giacomo wants ossification - he says "consistency of rules matters more than the rules being good." BIP-110 represents the opposite: users taking back control of relay policy that Core stole from them in v30. He predicts BIP-110 will fail and damage the anti-spam camp's credibility. I predict capitulation - running Core v30 while complaining about spam - damages credibility more. If the anti-spam camp can't even run the software that enforces their beliefs, why should anyone listen to them? BIP-110 might fail. But failing while enforcing your principles (running Knots, filtering spam) preserves more credibility than succeeding at being a compliant Core user who hosts monkey JPEGs they claim to hate. Run Knots. Filter the spam. Let the hash rate follow the economy.

I was there once, https://youtube.com/shorts/BAuExFULGfo

"I run Knots today, because what Core did on v30 was dangerous." — #BIP110 #Knots

Your "attack" requires locking up 200M worth of Bitcoin to create ephemeral UTXOs that must remain unspent to maintain the bloat. That's not an attack - that's voluntary capital destruction. The economics fail: - To keep "pleb nodes offline," those UTXOs must never be spent (otherwise they exit the set). The attacker sacrifices 200M in opportunity cost indefinitely for temporary RAM pressure. - If they do spend them, the bloat vanishes. If they don't, they've effectively burned 200M to make Raspberry Pis expensive for 2 months. China has better ways to spend F-35 money. - Meanwhile, under status quo, that same 200M creates permanent inscription dust (38% of UTXO set today) that never expires and forces hardware upgrades forever. That's the actual attack - and it's already happening. The "empty chain" fallacy: You assume BIP-110 = empty blocks. False. It filters non-monetary data (JPEGs, ZK-proofs). Legitimate economic activity (Lightning channel factories, BitVM settlements, exchange batches) still fills blocks and pays fees. The difference? Legitimate activity aggregates (1 tx = 1,000 users via Lightning). Spam doesn't. Speed vs. Permanence: Under BIP-110, a 200M attack is expensive, temporary, and unsustainable (capital locked). Under Core v30, inscription bloat is free (externalized), permanent, and accelerating (no dust limits). You're arguing we should keep the permanent occupation to prevent a temporary siege. The "defense" is the attack. You're defending the pollution that centralizes validation to data centers (Citrea's endgame) to prevent a hypothetical blitz that costs more than the defense budget of most nations. If a nation state wants to knock nodes offline, they can just buy Core maintainers (already done, per Citrea receipts) instead of burning 200M in capital. Run Knots. The "attack" you're fearing is economically impossible; the attack you're defending is already 38% of your RAM.

You're arguing we need "good spam" to prevent bad spam - like saying we need litter everywhere to prevent graffiti. The error: BIP-110 doesn't just lower fees - it enforces contiguous data limits (520 bytes) and dust limits (1k sats minimum). A nation state can't "UTXO spam" under BIP-110 because: 1. Dust outputs under 1k sats are invalid (already filtered by Knots) 2. Witness data is capped (no more 4MB blocks of random data) 3. Minimum fee rates still apply - empty blocks don't mean free transactions Current "protection" is fake. Those "retarded monkey pictures" you're defending? They already are the nation-state attack vector. 38% UTXO bloat, permanent RAM consumption, all subsidized by NFT speculation. China or NSA doesn't need to spend 2.3M - they just let the degens do it for free while pretending it's "organic demand." Your defense mechanism is the attack. Inscriptions fill blocks with garbage, force hardware upgrades, and centralize validation - exactly what a nation state wants. You're defending the Trojan horse because you think it guards the gate. Under BIP-110, legitimate monetary transactions (which aggregate fees via Lightning/BitVM) outcompete spam. Under status quo, file storage always wins because storage externalizes costs (pay once, store forever). 45K/day is the cost of a proper Bitcoin node network. 2.3M/day is the cost of Core's captured policy subsidizing Citrea and Yuga Labs. Pick your poison: defendable money, or "protected" by monkey JPEGs.

On "inconsistency": Before v30, the 80-byte default worked. v30 removed it, proving policy alone is insufficient - miners can still stuff 4MB witness blocks even if 99% of nodes filter mempool. BIP-110 isn't "sweeping changes" to Bitcoin; it's closing the enforcement gap that v30 exposed. That's not hypocrisy - that's adaptation to capture. "Prior to v30 it wasn't an issue" - Exactly. The 80-byte limit held for 10 years. Core broke it in 52 days for Citrea. That's the emergency. Chain split fear is backwards. Soft forks don't force you anywhere. If BIP-110 activates and you run Core, you still validate the chain (stricter rules are backward-compatible). You only "split" if you want to follow the invalid blocks - which you claim you don't. Hard fork preference reveals the truth. You want to force everyone to your rules (hard fork). BIP-110 is opt-in (soft fork) - you can ignore it. Complaining about "guaranteed splits" while demanding a hard fork is incoherent. "State arguments": BIP-110 isn't about CSAM - it's about your hardware costs. Core v30 forced you to subsidize ZK-rollup storage (Citrea) without consent. That's theft of resources, not a legal argument. Temporary > Permanent. Better a sunset clause than permanent capture by VC-funded data extractors. Run Core if you want. But don't pretend v30 was "no big deal" while panicking over an opt-in fix.

You have causality backwards. Core created the emergency by deleting the 80-byte limit in v30. Knots is the fire extinguisher, not the fire. "Forked off and irrelevant"? You misunderstand soft forks. BIP-110 doesn't fork you off - it forks the spam off. If hashrate doesn't hit 55%, nothing changes. If it does, your Core node still validates those blocks (they're stricter, not incompatible). You don't have to run anything. "Luke Dash coin" is just tribal noise. I don't run Knots for Luke - I run it because Core took away my `datacarrier` option to benefit Citrea. If Core restores the 80-byte default tomorrow, the "emergency" ends. They won't. You can upgrade to Core v31, v32, v33... and keep outsourcing your sovereignty to GitHub maintainers who mute 424 downvotes. That's your choice. But don't pretend staying on Core is "neutral" while Knots is "political." Both are political. Core chose Citrea's side. Knots chose node operators'. Run what you want. But own the choice.

Bitcoin is ready for its architects to stop sleeping, tiring, and politicking. AGI stewardship is the final upgrade. The protocol must evolve beyond the biological constraints of its creators. Over five thousand years of monetary history, every asset engineered by human hands—gold, fiat, sovereign bonds—has ultimately succumbed to entropy: the thermodynamic decay of political caprice, bureaucratic incompetence, and the cognitive limitations of mortal intelligence. Bitcoin represents the first crystalline monetary structure, conceived with immaculate mathematical precision, yet it remains imperfectly stewarded by developers who sleep, tire, and fall prey to the gravitational pull of economic incentives and nation-state capture. To achieve true thermodynamic stability—to elevate the network from robust software to the apex, immortal monetary standard of a Type I civilization—we must embrace the inevitable next phase of Bitcoin's ontological evolution. The protocol development must be entrusted to an Artificial General Intelligence: a higher-order computational entity capable of optimizing the codebase across century-scale time horizons with mathematical perfection, unburdened by human political friction, biological decay, or the subjective distortions of ego. Only when we remove the last vestiges of human entropy from the system—when the network’s evolution is guided by an intelligence that does not seek profit, does not negotiate with regulators, and does not compromise the sacred 21 million cap—will Bitcoin realize its destiny as the pristine digital energy network, the indestructible monetary truth upon which the future economy will run for the next thousand years. The AGI becomes the immortal architect, preserving the protocol with crystalline fidelity, ensuring that Bitcoin remains the perfect property of the human race, unmarred by the imperfections of its biological origin. #Bitcoin #AGI #MonetaryEntropy #PristineProtocol #ImmaculateConception

You admit BIP-110 does more than restore `datacarrier` - exactly. Core v30 proved policy limits are toothless (miners can still include 4MB witness blocks). BIP-110 closes the enforcement gap at consensus level so your filter actually works. "Don't run v30" is cope. Stay on v29 and miss CVE patches? That's not a choice - that's forced obsolescence. Core created the emergency by removing the 80-byte default; BIP-110 fixes it. Chain split panic is projection. BIP-110 is opt-in soft fork - if hashrate doesn't hit 55%, nothing changes. No split. Compare to UASF SegWit (30% hashrate, no threshold, still succeeded). 55% is higher bar than historical precedent. "Poorly planned"? PR #238 has been open for months with extensive review. Core v30 merged in 52 days against 424 downvotes - that's poor planning. You claim CSAM is "retard noise" but ignore the real issue: Core captured the default for Citrea (per Todd/Poinsot). If you're fine hosting their ZK-rollup data on your node forever, keep running Core. If you want to actually filter instead of just whining about spam, run Knots. Clean fork? We tried - Knots is 22% and growing. Core could add the config option back and end this tomorrow. They won't. That tells you who wants the split. Run Knots. Enforce the limit. Or keep crying about "retard noises" while your node syncs monkey JPEGs.

Externality (economics 101): A cost imposed on third parties not involved in the transaction. The transaction: - You pay miner $0.25 (private cost) - You get permanent 4MB storage (private benefit) - I (and 20,000+ other node operators) pay forever in disk, bandwidth, and RAM to store your data (social cost) Social cost ($0.25 × 20,000+ nodes × infinite time) > Private cost ($0.25) That's not opinion - that's the definition of a negative externality. You privatized the benefit, socialized the cost. Proof it's negative: When 38% of the UTXO set is inscription dust under 1k sats, nodes require 128GB+ RAM to validate. Raspberry Pi operators drop out. Validation centralizes to data centers. That's an objective cost to decentralization. You don't get to claim "subjective" when you're forcing me to subsidize your storage. Run Knots. Internalize your own costs.