pull down to refresh
BIP-110 sounds good on paper — a temporary soft fork to reclaim block space from Ordinals and inscriptions — but it fundamentally misunderstands the problem it's trying to solve. The proposal introduces seven consensus-level restrictions targeting data embedding vectors, yet Peter Todd demonstrated its fatal flaw by encoding the entire text of BIP-110 itself into a single compliant transaction. If the rules can't even stop someone from embedding the proposal's own text, they won't stop determined data embedders — they'll just make the process slightly more expensive and fragmented. That's not a solution; it's an inconvenience.
The deeper issue is what BIP-110 represents for Bitcoin's future. Bitcoin's consensus rules have historically been objective and content-neutral — a valid transaction is valid regardless of what its data "means." The moment we start restricting transactions based on subjective judgments about "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" use of block space, we set a precedent that could be turned against any disfavored use case tomorrow. And with only ~2.4% of nodes running the activation client and zero miner signaling, a forced UASF activation risks a chain split that would burn the community's coordination capital — making it harder to rally support for consensus changes we actually need.
If blockchain bloat is the concern, there are better paths forward. BIP-54 (Great Consensus Cleanup) addresses overlapping security concerns like worst-case block validation time through targeted bug fixes without making content-based judgments, and it has far broader developer support. Bitcoin's censorship resistance isn't just a feature — it's the foundation. We should be solving the spam problem with better economics and smarter protocol design, not by giving anyone the power to decide which transactions deserve to exist.
How about that?
BIP-110 is not good. Filtering data on the consensus level is a terrible idea, that will backfire immensely,... soon some "other" data will be also considered "not good" anymore. Like transactions from obvious criminal activity... and down the rabbit hole we go.
Filter transactions on the application layer, not consensus layer
All of you fools who just criticize someone for not being pure enough... go build something yourselves or shut up.
What if without tariffs there would not be a 2.7% price inflation but a overall price decrease of 1%? Tariffs could have contributed by 3.7% and nobody would have noticed since they “expect 2-3%”.
The modern inflation mindset is just fucked up.
Curious if they managed to automate this and how, or if some scammer had to do this by hand (create each ticket)?
There are small things you can do, but nothing to change the system quickly. You have to adapt.
I find it funny, though, that some people talk about these ideas but don’t do the small things - like, for example, paying with cash instead of credit cards.
There’s no reason to be involved in the system more than you have to.
Episodes I to III are absolutely epic and the only reason you do not like them is that you are old and you saw them long after the original trilogy.
If you’d prefer not to be born yourself, do not have kids. Hell, just go kill yourself right away and you will save the environment and the planet more than if you go around spitting stuff against the most natural and beautiful thing ever - having kids.
If you are happy to be alive, at least majority of the time, have kids, as normal people do. It is good for you, it is good for the kids, it is good for the planet, it is good for the universe.
No, China doesn’t need to make a deal. They are a dictatorship for God’s sake and they will do what the fuck they want. Have you seen their reaction to Covid? China will not bend. Americans will be fucked without Chinese goods though. Good luck.
A lot of words and not much substance.
Remember, people can argue and come up with arguments for basically any point of view. This doesn’t mean that the arguments are valid.
Don’t let this socialistic view poison your mind.
Just use a password manager for things that are non-critical and a security key for critical systems and you’ll be fine
It is good to have manufacturing, but it is not good to have manufacturing jobs. Who would like to work a manufacturing job here, guys?
Yeah true
BIP-110 sounds good on paper — a temporary soft fork to reclaim block space from Ordinals and inscriptions — but it fundamentally misunderstands the problem it's trying to solve. The proposal introduces seven consensus-level restrictions targeting data embedding vectors, yet Peter Todd demonstrated its fatal flaw by encoding the entire text of BIP-110 itself into a single compliant transaction. If the rules can't even stop someone from embedding the proposal's own text, they won't stop determined data embedders — they'll just make the process slightly more expensive and fragmented. That's not a solution; it's an inconvenience.
The deeper issue is what BIP-110 represents for Bitcoin's future. Bitcoin's consensus rules have historically been objective and content-neutral — a valid transaction is valid regardless of what its data "means." The moment we start restricting transactions based on subjective judgments about "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" use of block space, we set a precedent that could be turned against any disfavored use case tomorrow. And with only ~7% of nodes running the activation client and zero miner signaling, a forced UASF activation risks a chain split that would burn the community's coordination capital — making it harder to rally support for consensus changes we actually need.
If blockchain bloat is the concern, there are better paths forward. BIP-54 (Great Consensus Cleanup) addresses overlapping security concerns like worst-case block validation time through targeted bug fixes without making content-based judgments, and it has far broader developer support. Bitcoin's censorship resistance isn't just a feature — it's the foundation. We should be solving the spam problem with better economics and smarter protocol design, not by giving anyone the power to decide which transactions deserve to exist.