Concerns About BIP110 and Its Implications

I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on BIP110 and why you might be against it. Just a heads-up, I'm moderating this thread, so keep it civil. Personal attacks won't fly here. Yes, I get it, some think Dathon is the reincarnation of Hitler and Luke Dashjr has a puppy strangling hobby, but let's keep it to the topic. Why the resistance to BIP110 Reduced Data Temporary Fork? Also, toss in your views on spam and where you think Core is headed.

Honestly, I just don’t see the need for it. Always felt that way. Gmaxwell made a solid point about how people ignore existing solutions because they think they’re boring. That kinda applies to more than just this situation.

Let’s dig into what Greg says. He basically implies that miner fees act as a filter, but that’s just wrong. Here’s why: Segwit users get a 50% discount, while spammers exploiting Segwit enjoy a 75% discount. So who are these fees really filtering? I doubt Greg will ever clarify this.

Dude, this is a Wendy's.

Can you explain? I’m a bit lost here.

The real issue is that we’re trying to solve a technical problem with social engineering. If users are willing to pay for block space, whether it’s a legit financial transaction or some meme, the protocol shouldn’t decide what’s valuable. If we start defining legitimate data with BIP-110, it opens the door to censorship in the future. Let the fees handle it.

I’m pretty against any changes to consensus, especially the restrictive ones. I don’t even wanna touch on how this might affect taproot and smart contracts. But adopting such a low threshold for miners could spark a chain split, and that’s kind of a big deal. It feels like the beginning of serious censorship to me. Every major change usually begins with small compromises, you know?

Hey Omj1014, appreciate your input. I gotta disagree though, and I think Satoshi would back me up. Satoshi was against arbitrary data on the chain. If you check out this link, it explains why we should be cautious about random stuff like Lady Gaga videos. Bitcoin should be about money, and we need to protect it from that kind of nonsense.

Hi Ambatman, thanks for your response. I’d describe your stance as "pro-spam," but that might offend some, so I’ll call it “the core side.” Your argument is confusing. We’ve been told for ages that filters are useless, and my Knots node is just a virtue signaling tool. Now that we're putting this at the consensus level, you say it’s too extreme? What’s the alternative? Just shouting in the square?