I guess I was a bit repetitive, and I wrote too much. I'll be shorter:

Did you *want* BIP110 to activate? (Your preference)

Did you think it would get the necessary support? (The preferences of others. Game theory, ...)

I guess your answer is "Yes" to both, but I'm curious which of those two - if any - you would be willing to discuss with me

There was no 'attitude' from me.

Bitcoin Core didn't increase the OP_RETURN limit in version 30. It was increased months earlier by the Bitcoin network; an in fact the consensus limit on OP_RETURNs was set to 1MB at least 10 years ago.

The Bitcoin Network made its own decentralized autonomous decision to accept large OP_RETURNs, and it made that decision before v30 existed

In fact, the number of large OP_RETURNs actually decrease slightly after v30 was released

You disagree with that decision. That's fine. But it's difficult for you to argue with the Bitcoin Network, precisely because it's decentralized and autonomous. Who are you going to argue with? You can't blame Core30, as the Network had already made the decision months earlier.

By the time v30 was released in October 2025, the default in Bitcoin Core was "effective", it was having one harmful effect and no positive effect: It was stopping small miners and small pools from seeing the transactions that were going to be mined. Again, you might disagree with that, but you have to be realistic if you want to go to war against the Tolerant Minority; it's very difficult to stop us

I know this seems repetitive to you. But this is an important opportunity to learn. People like me, in the Tolerant Minority, step in to take action to save Bitcoin. We don't ask for permission from Core or from Knots. You don't like our decisions sometimes, but that's what happens in a decentralized system.

Serious question: why did you think BIP-110 would succeed? It was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose, as it would bloat the UTXO set, and the main leaders were liars

research.mempool.space/opreturn-report/

(I think I've read all the replies by you in this [assuming my client is finding and rendering them all correctly])

You refer elsewhere to your desire for more variety of Bitcoin network clients. But that will just bring relay closer to consensus, so you better be prepared for the consequences 😀.

There will always be people (like me) who are happy to be more tolerant, such as relaying OP_RETURNs, when we believe the filters are harming the small miners. (You might think we have made the wrong judgement, but we do exist and we will take action)

Secondly, miners want to earn fees, and therefore they will connect to the nodes that give them fee-paying transactions

Therefore, the *de facto* relay policy will be the policy of the few dozen nodes that are more relaxed, if the miners connect to them.

Relay policy isn't a democracy. Relay policy isn't even controlled by the economics nodes. Relay policy is controlled by the *relaxed* nodes and the *relaxed* miners

If you have a goal to keep relay policy far from consensus, i.e. to have lots of filters, then you need to be very realistic. People like me will fight the filters, if we believe it's necessary to help the small miners, and there isn't much you can do about it

Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110

(I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives)

The big miners didn't really *reject* BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a "secret hard fork".

Some users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true

BIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation

The Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The "Tolerant Minority" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions


So, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about "game theory", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs

I think using your Bitcoin to open Lightning channels, and then swapping your Lightning balance to onchain (e.g. via Boltz) is easier to do - and at least as private - as what you suggest

"attack"

The Bitcoin network did literally *nothing*. It didn't even notice BIP110

No URSF, no invalidateblock.

Miners didn't make any change to their templates, or their signalling code

Bitcoin didn't defeat BIP110, it ignored it

Bitcoin moved on without BIP-110

Bitcoiners did nothing. No URSF. No 'invalidateblock'. We accepted BIP-110 blocks; but they fell behind the heavier chain

We just kept doing doing, relaying transcations and mining blocks as usual. Your 'fork' didn't impact us any way

Is it embarassing that you lost so comprehensively, despite us doing nothing?

So FIPS stands for Fastest Internet Packet Switching?

(Seriously though, love @FIPS )