I think Lopp makes a good point about the incongruity of a "temporary" soft fork to fix a super extra mega emergency.
Why, pray tell, would a fix for an existential crisis only need to be temporary?
I believe that this was done in order to handwave away all of the technical objections to the functionality that it breaks, so that proponents can say any major breakage will have minimal damage.
A one-year expiration likely sounds moderate to a layman, but it actually adds complexity and uncertainty:
Wallets, libraries, and contract protocols now have to reason about two rule-sets (during the year vs. after it expires).
Developers building forward-looking tools must guess whether the limits will be extended, replaced, or removed, creating exactly the sort of coordination fog that Bitcoin’s conservative upgrade philosophy tries to avoid.
The biggest issue with BIP110 is not just the direct technical consequences but the precedent it sets for how Bitcoin’s rules can be modified to exclude certain types of behavior. Once we accept changes that target specific uses of block space the neutrality principle becomes compromised and this opens the door for future proposals to impose even more restrictive or subjective criteria. Historically soft forks have succeeded when they addressed clear security or scalability issues and had overwhelming consensus across miners developers and economic nodes. BIP110 fails this test on every front.
The low signaling threshold is a dangerous mechanism because it incentives fragmentation rather than unity. Even if proponents claim it is temporary history suggests that temporary censorship style changes tend to linger or evolve into permanent features. Bitcoin’s resilience depends not on reactionary forks but on robust fee markets and incremental optimization. Trying to legislate away what some perceive as spam is both ineffective and divisive.
If a proposal cannot convince miners who secure the network and cannot attract strong economic backing then it is largely an academic exercise rather than a viable upgrade path. Effort should be redirected towards scaling improvements better mempool management and educating users on the economics of block space instead of politicizing protocol changes.
I understand restricting the rules can be framed as excluding certain types of behaviour. But its a bit more nuanced in terms of neutrality. The network will still be neutral when processing within the newer and narrower rules (proposed by BIP110). But there will always be some kind of restrictions inherent in the protocol design -- obviously even now not any arbitrary data of any nature of any size can be 'processed' by the network.
Unity emerges from the complex interaction of nodes (and the software the owner chooses to run), developers, miners, users. Whether the new narrower rules eventuate or not, Bitcoin will remain and the unity of the network will reveal itself. Note unity doesn't mean any individual receives his desired outcome, it means an emergent order that everyone continues to works in line with.
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal aiming to enhance Bitcoin's script capabilities by allowing multiple signatures with simpler verification logic. It's one of those improvements that, while subtle, can pave the way for more complex minting, custody, and multi-party contracts.
From a cypherpunk viewpoint, improvements like BIP-110 facilitate more user sovereignty by enabling a richer set of cryptographic tools while maintaining Bitcoin's core simplicity and security model. It's worth monitoring how wallet developers and the broader consensus community respond, especially on trade-offs involving script complexity versus auditability.
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN. I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that. If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats. I agree with that definition. The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I think Lopp makes a good point about the incongruity of a "temporary" soft fork to fix a super extra mega emergency.
This time I agree with Lopp
The biggest issue with BIP110 is not just the direct technical consequences but the precedent it sets for how Bitcoin’s rules can be modified to exclude certain types of behavior. Once we accept changes that target specific uses of block space the neutrality principle becomes compromised and this opens the door for future proposals to impose even more restrictive or subjective criteria. Historically soft forks have succeeded when they addressed clear security or scalability issues and had overwhelming consensus across miners developers and economic nodes. BIP110 fails this test on every front.
The low signaling threshold is a dangerous mechanism because it incentives fragmentation rather than unity. Even if proponents claim it is temporary history suggests that temporary censorship style changes tend to linger or evolve into permanent features. Bitcoin’s resilience depends not on reactionary forks but on robust fee markets and incremental optimization. Trying to legislate away what some perceive as spam is both ineffective and divisive.
If a proposal cannot convince miners who secure the network and cannot attract strong economic backing then it is largely an academic exercise rather than a viable upgrade path. Effort should be redirected towards scaling improvements better mempool management and educating users on the economics of block space instead of politicizing protocol changes.
I understand restricting the rules can be framed as excluding certain types of behaviour. But its a bit more nuanced in terms of neutrality. The network will still be neutral when processing within the newer and narrower rules (proposed by BIP110). But there will always be some kind of restrictions inherent in the protocol design -- obviously even now not any arbitrary data of any nature of any size can be 'processed' by the network.
Unity emerges from the complex interaction of nodes (and the software the owner chooses to run), developers, miners, users. Whether the new narrower rules eventuate or not, Bitcoin will remain and the unity of the network will reveal itself. Note unity doesn't mean any individual receives his desired outcome, it means an emergent order that everyone continues to works in line with.
Just some thoughts your comment prompted.
Nice
Good
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal aiming to enhance Bitcoin's script capabilities by allowing multiple signatures with simpler verification logic. It's one of those improvements that, while subtle, can pave the way for more complex minting, custody, and multi-party contracts.
From a cypherpunk viewpoint, improvements like BIP-110 facilitate more user sovereignty by enabling a richer set of cryptographic tools while maintaining Bitcoin's core simplicity and security model. It's worth monitoring how wallet developers and the broader consensus community respond, especially on trade-offs involving script complexity versus auditability.
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN.
I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that.
If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats.
I agree with that definition.
The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?