I appreciate your response here, and I agree with many of your points.
I, too, am running an old version of Core. Nor do I have any particular attachment to that project.
I've read the BIP, although I'll certainly admit that I am capable of misunderstanding things. The BIP's statements that "spam is best fought with policy/filters, not consensus" are given the lie by the very fact that RDTS is temporary. Additionally, if one listens to Luke or Dathon or Mechanic, it seems that continual forking is very much in line with the BIP 110 vision.
I think Bitcoin is quite a bit different than a telephone network. And we should be very careful about calling previously valid transaction types "exploits." It may even be the case that with Bitcoin once a transaction type is valid and widely-used, we're stuck with it.
I use bitcoin because it is the best chance I have to resist state control of my money. It achieves this by making it very hard for the state to prevent me from getting my utxos in a confirmed block.
BIP 110 claims to improve this censorship resistance of bitcoin by maintaining low burdens on node runners. But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
As far as I can tell, a user of bitcoin who bought bitcoin in 2011 can still use bitcoin in the same ways they did when they first started using it (plus in a bunch of new ways). And so on and so on until BIP 110. Now, there is a proposal to say all these people who used Bitcoin in a way that we don't like lose their guarantees. This seems like a very dangerous path to me.
Like I said at the top, I agree with many of your points, especially that we should be thinking about how we pay for bitcoin development. But I am entirely unconvinced by BIP 110.
I appreciate your response here, and I agree with many of your points.
I, too, am running an old version of Core. Nor do I have any particular attachment to that project.
I've read the BIP, although I'll certainly admit that I am capable of misunderstanding things. The BIP's statements that "spam is best fought with policy/filters, not consensus" are given the lie by the very fact that RDTS is temporary. Additionally, if one listens to Luke or Dathon or Mechanic, it seems that continual forking is very much in line with the BIP 110 vision.
I think Bitcoin is quite a bit different than a telephone network. And we should be very careful about calling previously valid transaction types "exploits." It may even be the case that with Bitcoin once a transaction type is valid and widely-used, we're stuck with it.
I use bitcoin because it is the best chance I have to resist state control of my money. It achieves this by making it very hard for the state to prevent me from getting my utxos in a confirmed block.
BIP 110 claims to improve this censorship resistance of bitcoin by maintaining low burdens on node runners. But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
As far as I can tell, a user of bitcoin who bought bitcoin in 2011 can still use bitcoin in the same ways they did when they first started using it (plus in a bunch of new ways). And so on and so on until BIP 110. Now, there is a proposal to say all these people who used Bitcoin in a way that we don't like lose their guarantees. This seems like a very dangerous path to me.
Like I said at the top, I agree with many of your points, especially that we should be thinking about how we pay for bitcoin development. But I am entirely unconvinced by BIP 110.