[X post: https://x.com/dathon_ohm/status/2008326050179088775?s=20]

I'm happy to announce UASF BIP-110 v0.1 Release Candidate 2: https://github.com/dathonohm/bitcoin/releases/tag/v29.2.knots20251110%2Bbip110-v0.1rc2

This RC has also been packaged for @nprofile1q... v0.3 and v0.4, @nprofile1q..., and @nprofile1q... (links below).

Thanks to everyone for your patience and support. Bitcoin is money!

---

Start9 v0.3: https://github.com/dathonohm/knots-startos/releases/tag/v29.2.knots20251110%2Bbip110-v0.1rc2

See https://bip110.dev/howto for installation instructions.

---

A PR has been submitted to the MyNode repo and is pending approval: https://github.com/mynodebtc/mynode/pull/982

---

A PR has been submitted to the
Umbrel repo and is pending approval: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel-apps/pull/4237 (h/t
@leo_haf
)

---

Start9 v0.4: https://github.com/dathonohm/knots-startos/releases/tag/v29.2.knots20251110%2Bbip110-v0.1rc2-startos0.4.0

Can you explain your reasoning?

The new draft of the BIP has been posted to the bitcoindev mailing list:

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8/m/d4tkNi0DAQAJ

The code has been published here:

https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/compare/29.x-knots...UASF:bitcoin:29.2.knots20251010+BIP444?expand=1

I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback.

We can do this once the temporary one (which is a bit blunt) expires.

I think it is less urgent than "emergency", but more urgent than something we should wait 18 months to do.

It's possible.

After much discussion and consideration, I have decided to remove the reactive deployment method and the legal/moral motivations from the BIP document.

I still think those things are important and the reactive deployment may become necessary in an emergency, but I want to continue building consensus and those features were hampering progress.

I hope to have the new draft ready in the next day or two.

Thanks to everyone for your support so far.

Updated

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsd343pq5gwlc90lsyvhw7lsn7t6fkqnnrsv2q0u2v6t4neh6qduzc5phv50

Claims of confiscation are just FUD. A competent person tried to find an example of a TXO that could be confscated by BIP444 and came up with nothing. But to be completely sure, I'm adding a UTXO height check in the next draft of the BIP.

Respecfully, no one's money is being "seized". That is sensationalism.
A few UTXOs may be frozen up to a year, but only if created after the fork activates.

See:

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsfggty50a8jk2h32yn79kpn94esh0aqjutlzpaq0frgh58c0uc52ct3equn

How?

This fork will, among other things, decisively determine whether Core 30 is an authority. I think a large majority agrees that it is not.