David T. retweeted
HOW BIP-110 WINS THE SOFT FORK WAR
Ok, two takes are wrecking this debate:
1) "It's just spam / JPEGs / fees."
2) "Nobody's adopting it, so it's dead."
Both are wrong.
And both keep serious people on the couch.
First: not just spam
Everyone wants NGU / WAGMI
Well, NGU needs enthusiasts who still understand the whitepaper, write code, run nodes, teach friends, and orange-pill people.
Not resigned fatalists who think it's pointless to fight spam, the old hands.
The enthusiast-evangelists stay if the consensus rules stay worth defending:
money first, using ordinary hardware, still runnable --
and still something a normal human dares to run under real law around the world.
Disk is real.
A fee pays for inclusion once. Full nodes carry the data forever.
Roughly: ~450 GB before the inscription wave to something like ~750 GB later.
Heavier verification. That is a tax on the people NGU still needs.
A lot of Bitcoiners still think that is the whole argument. meh.
@NickSzabo4, Oct 2025.
To be fair, he hasn't published a public endorsement of BIP-110 by name, I am not claiming he did. What he did write is the legal-risk case most people still skip:
"Arbitrary content on blockchains makes them far more risky, legally and morally, to operate, than with blockchains confined to financial transactions.
Running a node where one cannot selectively delete unacceptable content without wider functional disruption is also far riskier than running data services where one can selectively delete unacceptable content
without causing wider functional disruption."
He names categories people dodge: CSAM/CP, obscenity, copyright, political bans, trade secrets, classified stuff.
Hundreds of jurisdictions. Some enforcement is highly motivated.
Then the direction:
"Nodes on blockchains that, through means such as escalating fee schedules, byte limits, format enforcement, etc., discourage arbitrary content,
are far less risky to run than nodes on blockchains that encourage arbitrary content."
Byte limits. Format enforcement. Discourage arbitrary content.
That is the direction.
He is against policy that encourages large arbitrary data as normal.
Legal and moral risk. Not aesthetics.
Illegal or radioactive content you cannot selectively delete without ceasing to be a full node.
Open legal question almost everywhere about operator risk.
If that still sounds purely theoretical, it is not.
I used to run a Kazaa node.
Kazaa was one of the big peer-to-peer file-sharing networks before modern torrents.
People shared music, movies, software -- a lot of it copyrighted.
The network and its operators got buried in lawsuits and bad press.
Sharman Networks, behind Kazaa, eventually settled with the record labels
for on the order of $100 million+ and was forced to kill the old free-for-all model.
Ordinary users also lived under the fear that their computer was hosting
or serving the wrong file when the industry decided to make examples.
Bitcoin is not Kazaa.
A validating full node is not the same legal object as a P2P media client.
But the participation risk rhymes hard:
you run software that carries other people's content,
you often cannot surgically delete the radioactive bits without breaking the job,
and once the content is permanent and public, scrutiny can land on whoever still runs the machine.
That is the same class of risk Bitcoin opens wider
when policy makes large arbitrary data normal and easy --
including the Core v30 relay / OP_RETURN defaults.
Not "JPEGs are annoying."
"Will normal people still want to run this at home?"
If ordinary people will not run nodes, NGU still has a ticker for a while. But it is not the same network.
That is why "better consensus rules" is the real question --
not who dunks whom.
Second: "nobody's adopting" is not how this works
Treat this like an election.
In this election there are only two real ballots:
UASF = run software that ENFORCES BIP-110
(non-compliant blocks are invalid)
URSF = run software that REJECTS the BIP-110 activation path
(a real no, in code)
That is the only way to vote.
Podcasts are not a vote.
Quote-tweets are not a vote.
Bio tags are not a vote.
Running default software while arguing online is not a vote.
That is staying home on election day while yelling at the TV.
Right now we have not really gotten to the ballot yet.
We are still in pregame:
clients exist, people argue, a little miner signaling shows up,
almost everyone is still on status-quo software.
Status-quo software means:
run today's rules, accept the most-work tip under those rules.
Fine as a default. Not a ballot.
Early is always small.
"Small forever with no economic weight" loses the right to call itself Bitcoin.
That is a different claim from "small today."
Hemingway wrote something about bankruptcy, that it happens gradually, then suddenly.
Elections and soft-fork windows work like that too.
People wait. Then the mandatory window. Then the tip choice gets expensive.
Last minute is a feature of the game, not proof the idea is fake.
I measured this on my Umbrel. Cross-checked the public monitor.
~July 21, 2026 UTC. Tip around 958,970-958,980.
What is "bit 4"?
Miners put a version number in every block header.
BIP-110 uses one of those version bits -- bit 4 -- as a readiness flag.
When a miner sets bit 4, that block is signaling:
this hash is ready for BIP-110's activation path.
That is not the full election by itself.
It is more like early fundraising and readiness polling on-chain.
It is not the same as economic nodes already enforcing BIP-110 rules.
Current difficulty period 475 (blocks 957,600-959,615):
bit-4 signaling about 0.87% (about 12 blocks)
almost all of it from @ocean_mining
early lock-in needs 1,109 of 2,016 blocks (55%)
this period cannot hit that
last full period about 0.99%
one ordinary early-lock window after 959,615
then mandatory-signaling near height 961,632 (about early August)
Headers right now:
bit-4 signal about 1%
status-quo / non-signal about 99%
active REJECT software weight: not measured from headers
Most opposition is still talk plus status-quo software.
That is allowed. Name it.
Listening nodes are not hashrate, not exchanges, not custody.
Wrong board: celebs, quote-tweets, "look how small."
Real board later: which code rejects which blocks,
who orphans what, who settles money where.
Status quo is winning on chain right now.
That is pregame. Not destiny.
Gradually... then suddenly.
What BIP-110 offers
BIP-110 (RDTS), authored by @dathon_ohm.
A temporary consensus soft fork.
For about a year it limits the main pathways for large non-monetary data.
Then the rules are meant to lift (about 52,416 blocks after activation).
Existing coins are grandfathered.
Ordinary payments are meant to keep working.
Verify at bip110.org and in the BIP text:
miners signal with version bit 4
early lock-in if 55% of a 2,016-block period signals (1,109 blocks)
if not early: mandatory-signaling / lock-in schedule around August 2026
@bitcoincoreorg v30 did not invent arbitrary data.
It did not change consensus by itself.
It changed default relay and mining policy (OP_RETURN / datacarrier).
Policy shapes what becomes normal.
BIP-110 is not a config undo button.
It is temporary consensus: some currently-valid data transactions
become invalid on enforcing nodes.
Let's own that. That is a soft fork. That is the fight.
It does not stop spam forever. Workarounds exist.
It can still be better law if it raises cost,
removes the red carpet for permanent cargo,
keeps ordinary verification practical,
and shrinks the legal attack surface that scares node runners off.
imho: it's better to make consensus rules for Bitcoin-as-money
than "leave the door open and hope fees sort permanent data."
Closer to @NickSzabo4's risk model than the policy path that encourages arbitrary content.
That is a judgment about rules. Not a loyalty oath.
@Excellion -- the picture I think you are missing
I respect you.
I think your position on BIP-110 is missing a perspective, so please permit me.
You sell nation-states and institutions on Bitcoin as NGU technology.
That story only works if Bitcoin stays actually decentralized.
I think you have drastically underestimated how badly Core v30 hurt the trust
of programmers and people who actually run the code on real nodes in Bitcoin's future.
You have to ask: will serious builders and home operators keep showing up,
or will they resign and leave verification to professionals?
Your NGU product -- the thing you wrap and sell upward --
does not work if those people are not on board.
If small node operators disappear, "don't trust, verify"
becomes marketing copy on top of a network where big pools and big operators
quietly hold the real keys to what is practical.
That is closer to the PoS (piece of sh!t) world Bitcoin was supposed to leave behind
than to a monetary ledger ordinary people can still run.
Yes, soft forks have risk.
But risk alone does not mean BIP-110 is not offering a better set of consensus rules.
It is offering temporary limits on large non-monetary data pathways
so money and ordinary verification stay first.
I cannot always reply under your threads -- you only allow selective replies.
So this is the message in the open:
If the base layer's geeky enthusiast coder human network resigns,
the nation-state story you are selling gets hollow.
So please, stand up for the consensus rules that keep small node operators in the game.
I hope you re-examine BIP-110 with that frame.
Most popular objections (short):
@saylor: spam dispute → consensus change = dangerous precedent.
@adam3us: bad idea; does not fix spam; breaks some money use; no consensus.
@lopp: reckless, irrational, doomed.
@Excellion: unviable; ignore it.
@pwuille and peers: filters do not permanently stop embedding;
temporary consensus has costs, workarounds, split risk.
Real risks: chain split, 55% is lower than classic ~95% BIP9-style thresholds,
Taproot / script surface, political attack surface, temporary rules becoming habit.
imho, all these takes are either fatalistic (we can't stop spam so just blow open OP_RETURN, aka @pwuille, @adam3us), or myopic by confusing the fact that BIP-110 is still small right now with the fact that the election hasn't happened yet (@saylor, @Excellion).
I support BIP-110 on the merits alone.
Not because of @LukeDashjr.
Not because of @GrassFedBitcoin.
Not because of @mattkratter.
I respect good teachers.
I am not joining a pitchfork plebs rebellion.
Also: do not ignore long-tail legal risk because it is uncomfortable.
@saylor @adam3us @lopp @Excellion -- if I misstated your position, correct me in public.
Steelman > dunk.
I have strong opinions, loosely held.
Who is saying this?
👋 Hi.
I am a Bitcoin maxi and a node runner.
I have orange-pilled more people than I can count.
I hand them @saifedean's The Bitcoin Standard,
walk them through the charts and the Bitcoin power law,
and sit with them until the light turns on.
I put real hours into learning this network --
@mattkratter's Bitcoin University, the old history and chats,
and staying current on the Bitcoin Core GitHub --
not because it is fun, but because this matters.
I have been programming for 30 years.
I have three degrees from MIT, including a PhD from the Media Lab.
I have built and exited companies.
I love Bitcoin to pieces, and I do not like what the base layer is becoming.
The signaling numbers above came from my own node and the public monitors.
I measured them myself.
What you can actually do
This is for people who care.
You do not need a mining farm.
Vote:
1. Buy an @umbrel (or use what you already have) and run a full node.
2. Run @BitcoinKnots with the BIP-110 / UASF build --
the version that actually enforces BIP-110.
That is casting a UASF ballot in software.
Start at bip110.org if you want the install path.
If you disagree, the honest vote is URSF software when you mean no --
not just posting. Talk is not a ballot.
If you have money, means, and passion -- start a PAC.
In this election the PAC is hash.
Rent hash power aimed at work that signals and supports BIP-110
(for example paths through @ocean_mining or other signal-friendly setups --
check current instructions on bip110.org).
That is how you put capital behind the ballot
without waiting for a giant farm of your own.
Also:
3. Read the BIP and the code. Find real bugs. Publish real fixes.
4. Teach one person. Hand them The Bitcoin Standard.
Keep the enthusiasts in the network.
One honest question:
Am I actually voting -- UASF or URSF --
or am I still at home yelling at the TV?
And in closing
Thanks for making it this far. I had a lot to say. If you enjoyed, please like and retweet.
Soft fork wars are elections decided by running code,
not by timeline volume.
NGU needs people who still run nodes and teach Bitcoin.
Those people leave if the base layer gets too heavy, too messy,
or too legally radioactive to host at home.
BIP-110 is a temporary soft fork to put tighter rules
on large non-monetary data for about a year, then expire.
The bet is simple: better consensus rules now
so ordinary verification stays normal later.
We are still before the real ballot for most of the network.
Small signaling today is pregame.
Last-minute coordination is how these things often move:
gradually, then suddenly.
Yes on BIP-110.
bip110.org
David T. retweeted
Most criticisms of BIP110 come from people who don’t understand the history that made BIP110 necessary.
If your understanding of BIP110 is “people are trying to change Bitcoin” you’ve missed the entire argument.
Here’s the timeline as I understand it. Please comment if I missed anything or made any mistakes.
1/ Bitcoin originally had anti-spam protections.
Satoshi implemented the first spam filters, and suggested there were “other things we could do if necessary” when trying to prevent use of the blockchain for arbitrary data.
Developers unanimously agreed that data storage was discernable, undesirable and to be discouraged
2/ SegWit introduced discounted witness space.
This was so that UTXOs were more cheap to consume than create. It was deliberately not made too large as there were concerns about it being used for spam.
Meant for scaling.
People that would use it to store non-monetary data would still be limited by the existing spam filters.
3/ Taproot increased script flexibility and bypassed existing filters.
Meant for privacy and smart contracting.
Created new ways to embed arbitrary data that would be relayed by the entire network before being mined
4/ Developers discovered the loophole.
Large amounts of non-payment data could now be stored more efficiently than before.
5/ Ordinals, inscriptions, tokens, and data schemes appeared.
6/@LukeDashjr proposed fixes.
He argued the bug was understood and fixable - simply subject taproot spends that reveal large amounts of frivolous data to the existing limits that applied to data storage elsewhere.
Core declined to update the filters and fix the bug with taproot.
7/ A new philosophy emerged inside Core.
“If it’s valid at the protocol level, it cannot be spam.” A standard that does not exist on any other protocol.
This replaced Bitcoin’s traditional anti-spam posture.
8/ Financial interests formed around the loophole.
Companies, exchanges, token issuers, NFT projects, and infrastructure providers began profiting from non-payment usage.
9/ The longer it would remaine open, the weaker Bitcoin would become, on a cultural level and on a technical level due to massively decreasing its efficiency as a payment network
Businesses were created with the expectation of a passive network that would not defend itself.
Non Bitcoin users became invested in the schemes.
Economic interests formed around preserving them.
10/ Core then went from failing to fix the filters to intentionally removing them in Core 30.
This was presented as “neutrality”.
Instead it was active solitication of parasitic use cases. They had moved from ignoring/tolerating spam to accommodating it.
11/ Trust in Core governance began to erode.
The issue was no longer inscriptions.
The issue was now the need to redefine Bitcoin as a solely monetary network, not a permissionless file storage network as that would create problems for users very quickly.
This is when @BitcoinKnots became popular.
12/ BIP110 was proposed - written by @dathon_ohm
To restore Bitcoin’s original anti-spam posture.
Not a new direction, but a revival of a network hostile to non-monetary usage.
To summarize:
First the loophole was created..
Then people exploited it..
Then businesses formed around it..
Then the businesses corrupted the trusted developers in the space who are now being fired as the network drops their client.
Because of all this, saying “large OP_RETURNs have always been consensus-valid” is completely disingenuous - a red herring at best.
David T. retweeted
IMO the issue isn't whether uncapping OP_RETURN technically reduces one specific workaround.
It's that Core, with that change, announces a clear philosophical shift away from the long-standing stance that Bitcoin is money first, and keep it as simple/unfuckable as possible, not lower friction for non-monetary payloads just because a grifting minority already found ways to do it anyways.
The old default policy (80 bytes) was a clear signal: "this isn't a subsidized database."
Changing it in v30 normalizes and standardizes non-money use in the reference implementation. That's not neutral harm reduction, it's a clear pivot. It invites more boundary-pushing, makes it easier for newcomers/grifters to justify "but Core allows it," and adds very predictable social-layer infighting (which we’re seeing right now).
You say my points repeat "false narratives" debunked over 1000s of hours. That doesn’t address the philosophical shift at all.
Of course that feels like handwaving and appeal to technical authority. If this shift can’t be solidly explained and justified in layman’s (pleb) terms, then that’s a red flag to me.
Why not keep resisting accommodation for data embedding instead of facilitating it?
The backlash against core is a good faith immune response by people who care a lot and are not talking some VC narrative. It is the voice of maxis/plebs defending the ethos that drew most of us in.
Core can push changes, but the community can (and will) push back hard when it smells like erosion of first principles.
David T. retweeted
BIP110 adoption and rationale is gaining momentum rapidly.
Threatening to corrupt bitcoin is different in effect to actually seeing contaminated blocks being mined, and now that the threat is made very real, the cost in every aspect is being calculated on every side, by the people put at direct risk by this madness.
The people who will suffer directly are the ones who actually run Bitcoin. The people who merely play at being in bitcoin are not affected no matter what happens.
These “Bitcoin is a game space” actors are easy to spot and as soon as normal people look at them, they’re immediately discredited. The imaginary game space is the only place where their existence has meaning.
Then there is the “Black Swan” that almost no one is taking into account.
Threatening to launch an attack on a financial network is one thing, actually building worm infrastructure to do it and then releasing it is another.
Since bitcoin is a strategic asset for all nation states, the people building, releasing and financing tools to spam it at scale are all either criminals themselves or accessories to a criminal conspiracy to engage in network disruption.
The Black Swan is law enforcement becoming involved.
Once this happens, the spam enterprise will instantly collapse, because every day it continues, criminal penalties will accrue. They will shut it down, “Until there is legal clarity on the matter”. That’s what everyone does, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, if this happens, the infantilised, perpetual spectator class that think Bitcoin is a real life MMORPG will be completely unaffected. They have no skin in any game, not just Bitcoin.
And if they did have skin in the game what is it that they gain in each scenario?
If they are Actual Bitcoiners™, they gain from their hoard of Bitcoin being protected, their full nodes having greatly expanded life cycles and the promise of Bitcoin as money fulfilled. And “Number go up”. And if the Spammers win, they’ll still be rich.
If they are Spammers (Wreckers of Civilisation), what to they win if they win?
They get to make money out of Spam, beat Vitalik in the game he created, and build large companies built on Spam. They have real benefits to gain for themselves, and their users and shareholders.
But what does the uninvested, nocoiner, OPSEC-INCEL anon gain in either outcome?
Nothing.
Because they have no skin in any game, are anti social, uninvolved, uninvested, uncommitted, disconnected, pathetic and infantilised, literally believing that they’re living in a waking dream or simulation, and do they have no real care for the outcome.
It’s all a game for them.
Everything is a game for them.
And in the end, that makes them the ultimate, complete losers no matter which side wins.
David T. retweeted
I've spent the last month looking closely at how Bitcoin Core and the network around it has operated the last years.
A blatant cultural and philosophical shift.
Shocking arrogance and contempt for dissent on display around the OP_RETURN uncap. Opposition was reframed as "harassment", "drama" and "brigading". Consensus was simply declared, in the face of massive controversy and opposition.
Bitcoin is imo clearly drifting towards “anything goes if there is a use case out there” relativism.
Bitcoin is supposed to be money. That's the mission. Separating money and state. Not being a data layer adapting to the needs of venture-backed projects.
Staying neutral while Bitcoin drifts in this direction isn't something I can justify anymore. It feels urgent that something is done to counter it.
David T. retweeted
1/
In 2025 Bitcoin Core removed a decade-old mempool policy default — a configurable limit on how much non-financial data nodes would relay. OP_RETURN was effectively uncapped.
Not a consensus rule. A default setting. But defaults govern what most of the network does. Which governs what miners see. Which governs what gets mined.
The justification: it wasn’t working anyway, data was getting in through a loophole.
What wasn’t disclosed: that loophole had been deliberately kept open.
Here’s the documented sequence. 🧵
David T. retweeted
I was asked by a member to describe the current realtionship between gold and Bitcoin markets.
Here is my analogy made simple.
In the brutal savanna of finance, a bloated, dying baboon (the Fed, stock market, US Treasury, and the entire fiat system) staggers under the weight of inflation's slow poison and bankers' time theft, its lifeblood draining from endless debt and debasement.
A sleek leopard (Bitcoiners) strikes from the underbrush, jaws clamped on the baboon's throat, dragging it toward a den of hungry cubs.
The leopard's power?
Unmatched speed and adaptability, with a 137% CAGR since 2010 shredding the savanna's old guard, turning scraps into empires while the fiat herd collapses.
Clinging to the carcass is the infant baboon (gold investors), wide-eyed and aware, but stubbornly holding on. For now, in this 2025 dry season, the infant scurries ahead a bit, surging 60% as a temporary safe burrow amid global storms, while the leopard pauses to shake off volatility, down 11% in a week.
But history's math is merciless: gold's meek 8% CAGR is no match for the leopard's roar.
The infant might evade a swipe today, but it's destined for the cubs' feast as Bitcoin's network devours the old world's remnants.
Few understand: life's cruel in the wild, crueller in fiat's cage, but Bitcoin's the apex predator, and gold's just dessert.
David T. retweeted
They're spelling it out.
The changes in Core v30 make it easier for them to "Enable new forms of crowdfunding, staking, and digital economies on Bitcoin L1."
Make no mistake, this is shitcoining, and it is a net negative to Bitcoin. Any "use case" that isn't making sending and receiving sats cheaper or more private IS an abuse case. They all make using Bitcoin as intended—i.e., as a medium of exchange across space and time—more expensive.
And no, there is no proof that the change will lead to "less destructive" shitcoining. What's more likely is that it will lead to more shitcoining.
Resist it by any means you can!
Run @BitcoinKnots, or at least don't upgrade. And, perhaps most importantly, call out scams whenever you see them.
The shitcoiners are running out of gullible morons to scam. "Crypto" is dead. That's why they now have to find new fools in the Bitcoin space.
Bitcoin is perhaps the most important software project in human history. Defend it, ffs!
🔥 Bitcoin Core v30.0 just opened a new era for metaprotocols on Bitcoin.
With this update, OP_RETURN removes the 80-byte limit, allowing multiple data fragments to be emitted within a single transaction.
Plus, the minimum relay fee is reduced to 0.1 sat/vB, making it cheaper to store and execute data directly on L1.
What does this mean for the #Atomicals ecosystem and the AVM (Atomicals Virtual Machine)?
👉 The AVM will benefit directly by being able to:
Execute more complex contracts directly on Bitcoin, without relying on external layers.
Process multiple operations within a single transaction, reducing costs and increasing efficiency.
Enable new forms of crowdfunding, staking, and digital economies on Bitcoin L1.
Example:
A crowdfunding protocol built on AVM could now store all participation, validation, and result data within a single Bitcoin transaction, thanks to the expanded OP_RETURN capacity.
@bitmetabtc and the entire #Atomicals ecosystem are right at the inflection point where Bitcoin becomes a programmable layer without losing its L1 purity. 🔶
#Bitcoin #AVM #Bitmeta #Atomicals #ELECTRON #arc20
David T. retweeted
Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit:
1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.
2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").
3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.
The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.
David T. retweeted
GameStop has $4.6 billion in cash and its CEO recently met with Michael Saylor 👀
Will GameStop be the next company to adopt Bitcoin? 🚀
RT @SvetskiWrites: With the discussion about #Bitcoin starting to bubble up again (I guess that’s what a little price action does), I want…
David T. retweeted
Commish @robot99 just BROKE the NOSTR algorithm, making history!! 200k Sat prize zap!
MOST-ZAPPED Note in the last 4 hours! Thanks Derek for giving me the idea to advertise our community this way from your recent @BtcInfinityShow w/ @lukedewolf @knutsvanholm!
@SimplestBTCBook
David T. retweeted
#Bitcoin's volatility is a healthy part of financial markets
The legacy system does whatever it can to suppress volatility
In the old system, the rich will keep getting richer
Let me explain:
(THREAD 👇)
