Previous to the activation height block 965664 (around September 1st) all on chain transactions are seen as valid. After that point miners attempting to mine a transaction like that would produce an invalid block and be rejected by RDTS(BIP110) Nodes. Also minor mistake in my description before it is "OP NOTIF" not OP ELSEIF as I said before.

lnbc40u1p4y9etlpp520lvvdtw7ad8zccpqujjtpg3f4d8tk5xvxr6h7h0azkg03wdr49qdqqcqzzsxqrrs0sp5extkahkjksq3th3v5a3a3hucus3u3cm4a989czw520f5renklaus9qxpqysgql4d0spju57kwkyyas4msczltl4dak3c252nup03gl0cxevlczy035janfqreu4e0228rq5p4sye3r67cq3jrckme6xwh9wayvkgydqqq6tkgkl

Okay.

I would just say that your comment is like someone walking in the middle of the discussion between Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, asking what's going on, but telling them to not explain anything technically. I can explain BIP 110 to you pretty easily. It is a soft fork proposal to tighten the rules of Bitcoin. including limiting OP RETURN 283 bytes, removing the validity of OP IF and OP ELSEIF. Setting limits on tap leafs of a depth of 128. and limiting certain tap scripts to 256 bytes. Now if all of that seems like gibberish to you, that's why most people just leave it at BIP 110.

Okay.

I don't. I just don't understand the gripe exactly. Do you want people to not mention something you don't want to hear about?

Literally not at all. Just point your lightning node at either node implementation, and if the other one wins, just point it at another node.

It would be emergent. Also, this is a terrible experiment.😬

Chu talm bout? Do you want them to post the entire BIP with technicals every time they mention the thing or what?

So you aren't making a list then? Lol.

Which part is wrong? I said two different scenarios, didn't assign probabilities.

I wonder if it's just better in UI terms to just put the number of zaps. Not the amount of the zaps. Then faking a zap would be like faking a like. Who cares.

Both talks are pretty milk-brain, to be honest. James O'beirne: Don't worry about centralization risks because you can just trust cores, assumevalidUTXO, plus, who runs a full node anyway, Pleb? Then, trust miners to broadcast weak blocks for mempool diffs (totally small change and not a way to DDoS the Peer Gossip Network.🙄) Jamison Lopp: But the miners money. Money miners. We need miner money. Please bro, you gotta trust me. This is about miners making money. Let me put shitcoins on Bitcoin, man. Honestly, the through line in both of their talks is that we should care more about miners than the node runners. And honestly, fuck miners. If mining isn't a profitable business looks like they're just going to have to collapse then. All of these extra mental gymnastics and mealy mouth rationale all to say "help me keep my ad hoc industry alive." No.

We've already described what it solves and the harm is actually not that large at all. It's paying for the block space that you're using. I mean, if we're just going to misrepresent each other's positions, I'll just say that you love spam because you want it at a discount. And no matter how you reply, I'll just repeat that as if you haven't said anything.

Probably. But I think that happens when people are focused on other things.

Hahaha, yes, a small town can reliably trade with one another. Very true. Great discovery about non-scalable systems.

Truuuu

I am not demanding anything. I am telling you technical details about how Bitcoin works.

That's just not true. Prior to the block height of activation all transactions currently within consensus are valid. It is only once RDTS is activated that blocks will be thrown out by other nodes. OP_RETURN was originally intended to be a testing opcode and wasn't meant to be used on chain.