Bill Cypher -- 64d Knots will be explicitly rejecting blocks that core validates. That's 2 chains no matter how much wall of text you post. reply [1 reply]Knots will be explicitly rejecting blocks that core validates. That's 2 chains no matter how much wall of text you post.
thread · root ac6137f8…4983 · depth 14 · · selected 4c273d2e…ab86
thread
root ac6137f8…4983 · depth 14 · · selected 4c273d2e…ab86
bip110 is not about stopping spam.it wont stop spam.bip110 is about ego and control for mechanic and luke.so they riled up a mob to try to push through a hostile fork of bitcoin giving them complete control.when the fork fails they will try to threaten miners into a chain reorg. reversing thousands of bitcoin paymentsin the process.it is an attack on bitcoin and it will fail.bitcoin is the best money. if you care about it then reject reckless forks.
https://blossom.primal.net/57f04a846405f4fe78db7741787ac6024edbeaede2344a09ff6ac8f9884e8e28.jpg
That's not correct. Neither v30 nor b110 would be keeping it the same.Both split the community.
Wrong, RDTS brings us back to where we were before Core30.
I don't know what RDTS is?
BIP444 aka BIP110Reverses the data storage / CSAM vulnerability added by Core30's malicious changes.
It does no such thing. There is no way to "reverse" anything without confiscation/destruction/freezing fundswhich is what BIP110/444 does. It contributes to centralization of consensus and mining. I'm sorry you areincapable of grasping long term game theory on this
I think they get it and are willing to lie to get their way.Think about it, they are calling it a soft fork. There is no way to have different block validation without ahard fork. Clear shameless lying hoping you are too stupid to get it.
its a soft fork because all current versions of Bitcoin remain compatible with bip110 blocks as it is usingexisiting consensus rules and not adding new onesfun fact: a ursf contrary to it's name is a hard fork 🤓
Be as pedantic as you want. All it takes it 1 op return and you are a hard fork. My bet is somebody drops a timelocked transaction to block 1 after the activation to force the issue.
nothing pedantic about it, bet all you want, that's not a hard fork
Uh huh. So someone posts an 81 byte op return. Core validates the block. Knots does not validate the block.There are now 2 chains. Those 2 chains can never merge or reconcile. That's not a hard fork?
nope, not a hardfork. bip110 uses existing consensus rules rather than adding new ones making it compatible withall nodes on the networknodes that enforce bip110 would not ever see the offending block as valid, making the enforcing node only evercompatible with one side of the chainsplit.nodes that dont enforce bip110 remain compatible with both , but only one side of the chainsplit carryingperpetual wipeout risk. both sides of the chainsplit ultimately cant coexist without a hard fork presenta hardfork would explicitly reject bip110 blocks which would be adding a rule.
Knots will be explicitly rejecting blocks that core validates. That's 2 chains no matter how much wall of textyou post.
https://blossom.primal.net/57f04a846405f4fe78db7741787ac6024edbeaede2344a09ff6ac8f9884e8e28.jpg
a3718378…e16e -- 65d [parent] | reply [1 reply]That's not correct. Neither v30 nor b110 would be keeping it the same. Both split the community.
fdd5e8f6…64a7 -- 65d [parent] | reply [1 reply]Wrong, RDTS brings us back to where we were before Core30.
a3718378…e16e -- 65d [parent] | reply [1 reply]I don't know what RDTS is?
fdd5e8f6…64a7 -- 65d [parent] | reply [1 reply]BIP444 aka BIP110 Reverses the data storage / CSAM vulnerability added by Core30's malicious changes.
21b41910…1a5e -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]It does no such thing. There is no way to "reverse" anything without confiscation/destruction/freezing funds which is what BIP110/444 does. It contributes to centralization of consensus and mining. I'm sorry you are incapable of grasping long term game theory on this
Bill Cypher -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]I think they get it and are willing to lie to get their way. Think about it, they are calling it a soft fork. There is no way to have different block validation without a hard fork. Clear shameless lying hoping you are too stupid to get it.
Nyoro~n -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]its a soft fork because all current versions of Bitcoin remain compatible with bip110 blocks as it is using exisiting consensus rules and not adding new ones fun fact: a ursf contrary to it's name is a hard fork 🤓
Bill Cypher -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]Be as pedantic as you want. All it takes it 1 op return and you are a hard fork. My bet is somebody drops a time locked transaction to block 1 after the activation to force the issue.
Nyoro~n -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]nothing pedantic about it, bet all you want, that's not a hard fork
Bill Cypher -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]Uh huh. So someone posts an 81 byte op return. Core validates the block. Knots does not validate the block. There are now 2 chains. Those 2 chains can never merge or reconcile. That's not a hard fork?
Nyoro~n -- 64d [parent] | reply [1 reply]nope, not a hardfork. bip110 uses existing consensus rules rather than adding new ones making it compatible with all nodes on the network nodes that enforce bip110 would not ever see the offending block as valid, making the enforcing node only ever compatible with one side of the chainsplit. nodes that dont enforce bip110 remain compatible with both , but only one side of the chainsplit carrying perpetual wipeout risk. both sides of the chainsplit ultimately cant coexist without a hard fork present a hardfork would explicitly reject bip110 blocks which would be adding a rule.
nodes only follow one chain 🤷
2 chains is a great rapper tho