A few thoughts about BIP-110
I have been vocal about spam for the past few years. I agree with the motivation and rationales mentioned in BIP-110. Disclaimer I'm not deep into inner workings of Bitcoin script and inner workings, so I misunderstood details in the effects of the proposal.
My biggest issue with it is its suggested urgency. Activation in September this year with barely a finished specification out is just too quick. I rejected CTV for the drama and urgency their supporters pushed too. Beside that and beside CTV being done by an asshole which directly contracted by Epstein - if we can be sure it does not have any unintended sideffects that enable more spam or attack vectors, I would be fine if there is majority and it gets activated in a few years (but there are other interesting proposals too).
Related to that is that the activation threshold was reduced from 95% to 55%. Again, seems rushed and desperate.
I agree that Bitcoin Core lifting OP_RETURN limit was completely reckless and against the community. To this day I did not hear a coherent reason (only whataboutism and whishful thinking) why the limit was lifted instead of just marginally increased to cover todays and future use cases. This brings me to another critique of BIP-110: It seems Cores fear of new use cases putting data in fake pubkeys would all be covered by a 160 byte limit. By limiting OP_RETURN back to 83 byte, now on consensus level, is imo a mistake. By acknowledging its use as garbage bin a compromise to 160 byte might would have won a few Core supporters to support the proposal acknowledging their damage mitigation theory.
Another big issue for me is that it breaks miniscript and wallets that may use OP_IF or OP_NOTIF and BitVM use cases. While I think that BitVM use cases may better be built on L2 I don't have the technical insight on why it may makes sense and is not a waste of blockspace. I don't think it's a good idea to break those use cases.
About the temporarity of the proposel. On the website bip110.org it says "A one-year deployment that can be refined or extended based on community feedback." dunno, but it does not sound that temporary like later then in the faq item where it says it will just deactivate and expire. I also don't see any proposal as what will follow. I year goes by fast and I doubt a more refined new proposal will be mature enough to get activated in time. Again bad consequences of rushing it.
Those are the main issues for me although I'm 100% aligned with the intention and motivation of this proposal. But I'm not sure this is the right way to get there, sorry.
I also find it silly and contraproductive that supporters of BIP-110 are suggesting everyone who does not support BIP-110 is not for the monetary use case but a shitcoiner. Well this backfires as I (and likely others don't like to get bullied and rushed into things). So gfy, for that.
As we are at emotional warefare already, I also don't think that ad hominems against Core devs or their supporters are apropriate. Yes I don't agree with many of them on that topic and I think some of them are actively harming Bitcoin (conciosly or not), are idiots and triggering me. But I try to keep the discussion on logical, evidence-based arguments, also if they reply bullshit and keep repeating that. I hate this black and white argumentation from both sides, there is always nuance in things and discussing and trying to understand other positions helps to not talk past each other.
Also on the Core and supporters side I find it disingenouous that they insinst to be anti spam, pro monetary use but are openly joking with known spammers about people arguing for stronger filters. What they seem to not get is that beside all the technical discussion we should reject non-monetary and spamming usce-cases out of principle and not tolerate them at all. But instead they engage and are friends behind the scenes (at least it seems like that). I agree that the culture got diluted over the last few years and imho too young maintainers got lifted in those positions. Although they might be skilled and well trained their ethos and understanding of what Bitcoin was invented for, has not yet been developed yet and I don't think such people are the right persons for that job.
Back to the proposal, another thing that makes me feel uneasy is the precedent it would set. If it can activate with a minority what will come next. Will spammers do a counter proposal and bribe miners to singal to their softfork? I tell this all the Core and devs wanting to tinker and make pet projects on Bitcoin: we need to handle it like a nuclear power plant or flight control software, we can't fuck up and we have one chance for this! The same goes for defending spam.
tldr; I can't support BIP-110 for the above mentioned reasons but I'm open to support another proposal that might be not that broad, not rushed and more refined.
I have been vocal about spam for the past few years. I agree with the motivation and rationales mentioned in BIP-110. Disclaimer I'm not deep into inner workings of Bitcoin script and inner workings, so I misunderstood details in the effects of the proposal.
My biggest issue with it is its suggested urgency. Activation in September this year with barely a finished specification out is just too quick. I rejected CTV for the drama and urgency their supporters pushed too. Beside that and beside CTV being done by an asshole which directly contracted by Epstein - if we can be sure it does not have any unintended sideffects that enable more spam or attack vectors, I would be fine if there is majority and it gets activated in a few years (but there are other interesting proposals too).
Related to that is that the activation threshold was reduced from 95% to 55%. Again, seems rushed and desperate.
I agree that Bitcoin Core lifting OP_RETURN limit was completely reckless and against the community. To this day I did not hear a coherent reason (only whataboutism and whishful thinking) why the limit was lifted instead of just marginally increased to cover todays and future use cases. This brings me to another critique of BIP-110: It seems Cores fear of new use cases putting data in fake pubkeys would all be covered by a 160 byte limit. By limiting OP_RETURN back to 83 byte, now on consensus level, is imo a mistake. By acknowledging its use as garbage bin a compromise to 160 byte might would have won a few Core supporters to support the proposal acknowledging their damage mitigation theory.
Another big issue for me is that it breaks miniscript and wallets that may use OP_IF or OP_NOTIF and BitVM use cases. While I think that BitVM use cases may better be built on L2 I don't have the technical insight on why it may makes sense and is not a waste of blockspace. I don't think it's a good idea to break those use cases.
About the temporarity of the proposel. On the website bip110.org it says "A one-year deployment that can be refined or extended based on community feedback." dunno, but it does not sound that temporary like later then in the faq item where it says it will just deactivate and expire. I also don't see any proposal as what will follow. I year goes by fast and I doubt a more refined new proposal will be mature enough to get activated in time. Again bad consequences of rushing it.
Those are the main issues for me although I'm 100% aligned with the intention and motivation of this proposal. But I'm not sure this is the right way to get there, sorry.
I also find it silly and contraproductive that supporters of BIP-110 are suggesting everyone who does not support BIP-110 is not for the monetary use case but a shitcoiner. Well this backfires as I (and likely others don't like to get bullied and rushed into things). So gfy, for that.
As we are at emotional warefare already, I also don't think that ad hominems against Core devs or their supporters are apropriate. Yes I don't agree with many of them on that topic and I think some of them are actively harming Bitcoin (conciosly or not), are idiots and triggering me. But I try to keep the discussion on logical, evidence-based arguments, also if they reply bullshit and keep repeating that. I hate this black and white argumentation from both sides, there is always nuance in things and discussing and trying to understand other positions helps to not talk past each other.
Also on the Core and supporters side I find it disingenouous that they insinst to be anti spam, pro monetary use but are openly joking with known spammers about people arguing for stronger filters. What they seem to not get is that beside all the technical discussion we should reject non-monetary and spamming usce-cases out of principle and not tolerate them at all. But instead they engage and are friends behind the scenes (at least it seems like that). I agree that the culture got diluted over the last few years and imho too young maintainers got lifted in those positions. Although they might be skilled and well trained their ethos and understanding of what Bitcoin was invented for, has not yet been developed yet and I don't think such people are the right persons for that job.
Back to the proposal, another thing that makes me feel uneasy is the precedent it would set. If it can activate with a minority what will come next. Will spammers do a counter proposal and bribe miners to singal to their softfork? I tell this all the Core and devs wanting to tinker and make pet projects on Bitcoin: we need to handle it like a nuclear power plant or flight control software, we can't fuck up and we have one chance for this! The same goes for defending spam.
tldr; I can't support BIP-110 for the above mentioned reasons but I'm open to support another proposal that might be not that broad, not rushed and more refined.
4
