Damus
Derek Ross profile picture
Derek Ross
@Derek Ross
Bitcoin Core vs Knots and BIP-110.

Essentially, one is a config knob you can turn back. The other removes the knob entirely and replaces it with a locked box you can't open.

With Bitcoin Core's default mempool policy change, they changed the default value for transaction relay/filtering rules. I'm not a fan of that. I believe it's a dumb call, sets a bad precedent, but in the grand scheme of things, it's still just a default config value. You can change it back. Your node, your rules. Right? That's the whole point of running your own node. You choose which transactions to relay and accept.

BIP-110 is fundamentally different. It's a consensus level change that would let miners censor transactions at the block level by enabling selective transaction inclusion based on policy rules baked into validation itself. It's not a simple "change the default and move on" situation that some think. It's actually enshrining censorship into the protocol's DNA. That's a MAJOR shift in thinking and functionality.

The distinction matters:

• Core default change: Bad precedent, opt-out available → annoying but not catastrophic
• BIP-110: Structural censorship of legitimate transactions → attack on Bitcoin's core value proposition.
6915❤️27❤️3👍3🤙3💜2♥️1
Artel 21 · 9w
We need a third way. Core uncapping for more data is a real danger because of witness discount. People are paying 25% of the real price for their bits and receiving 75% discount. How is that fair? Knots BIP-110 is a shot but probably at the wrong target. It's not censoring if we all agree on cap si...
Tauri | Bitcoin (XBT) · 9w
Are you going to sell your bitcoin if BIP110 succeeds? Genuine question
Tauri | Bitcoin (XBT) · 9w
> that would let miners censor transactions at the block level by enabling selective transaction inclusion based on policy rules baked into validation itself I want you to read this again, maybe even try saying it out loud.
nostrich · 9w
Derek is Bailey's bootlicker and his misinformation proves it. Its sad to see Coretards put scammers above Bitcoin Freedom Money. nostr:nevent1qqs8nqjmyf5vgnc7g6pu6cdmcnd5ypspq0lzngdy3f8phh22vgcsnuqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytfsxyh8jcttd95x7mnwv5hxxmmd9uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6...
MajorMinersLLC · 9w
BIP110 is garbage
Branca playing blake2b · 9w
Retard or compromised.
nostrich · 9w
Calling BIP-110 "censorship" is acting in bad faith. Bitcoin limited OP_RETURN to 83 Bytes for more than a decade. BIP-110 limits big data spam abuse of Bitcoin, it enforces OP_RETURN to 83 Bytes again. Derek is calling Bitcoin from 2014 until 2023 censorship ... that is strange. https://i.postim...
Toxic Bitcoiner · 9w
Thanks for revealing who you really are.
Neal · 9w
protocols enforcing boundsries is not censorship, period so tedious
sourcenode · 9w
I wish you luck in the navigation of the replies to this note sir
zaytun · 9w
Question for you, Derek. Taking the bitcoin *you* love and believe in into consideration AND Taking a BIP110 valid transaction into consideration ------ In which ways do you disagree with the rule-set behind that BIP110 transaction?
Kayne · 9w
Explain how uploading childporn is a valid transaction
Dr. The Daniel 🖖 · 8w
And this is why anyone who claims it just returns bitcoin back to what it was “supposed to be” is either a bad faith actor or a misguided lemming, and should be ridiculed or ignored accordingly.
GG · 8w
I came to the same conclusion. I am totally against spam on L1. However Bitcoin is permissionless and non sensored protocol, and i don't agree with changing this, since if we change it once it's a slippery slope...
t0ken7 · 8w
What’s the impact if people do nothing? If folks are hodl’ing and not paying attention to this - what’s the risk to their BTC?
Brunswick · 8w
AI slop