• Simply Put
• Background
• Disappearing
• Why Yes on BIP-110
• The Oppositiion
• Mandatory Signalling
• Conclusion

§Simply Put

I am pro-BIP 110 and hope it succeeds with smooth signalling and smooth activation.

§Background

Most people I know in real life would associate me with bitcoin. “Oh @daann ? I don’t know much about him, but I know he likes bitcoin.” And that’s true. Actually, it’s barely true. These people have no idea how much I love bitcoin. I know hardly anything about bitcoin, but I know infinitely more about bitcoin than anyone I regularly interact with in real life. I think about it all the time. And without consciously realizing it until recently, bitcoin (the money, the protocol, the ecosystem), provided a huge amount of stability to my general outlook on the future. If bitcoin disappeared, I would be distraught and need to recalibrate in a major way.

§Disappearing

It feels like bitcoin is disappearing right in front of me. Maybe it is the same as it always was, and I’m gaining or losing clarity. Or maybe it has been hijacked and is now not the same thing I thought I loved.

Being part of the class of “after-blocksize-wars,” I do not have an appreciation for taking the sides that won or lost that battle. But surely, until recently, I would not have imagined I’d be in the socially ostracized minority regarding bitcoin rules. I thought that was settled – I would agree with the victors’ viewpoints. With Odell’s viewpoint, or Adam Back’s viewpoint, or even Lopp’s viewpoint. (Note: before I started paying attention to bitcoin, I was a listener of the Tom Woods podcast, who had Lopp and Roger Ver on at the same time, and in hindsight I used the heuristic of Lopp being on the small-block/BTC side and on Woods’s show to mean he was a good guy. It’s interesting to listen to now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NAK-NCjdoM)

But here I am, on the side that has been derided for the past year-plus by those I used to spend my free time listening to and reading. The confidence (or arrogance) and derision (or condescension) by so many respected people in bitcoin for me is unsettling.

§Why Yes on BIP-110

I am not technical, and I am not positive that BIP-110 is totally sound, technically. I could certainly make a case, based on my rudimentary skills and understanding, that certain aspects of BIP-110 are counterproductive or simply not ideal. Any imperfections do not matter to me. Important aspects include reducing the op_return vulnerability and pushing back on Core’s recent changes. I do not care about the difference between the relay policy versus the consensus change – functionally the changes are the same thing. (I actually prefer the fix at the consensus level and preferred this before Core v30 was released.)

The “does it stop/slow spam” point is exhausting, and I see that as a side point overall. I do not care if it doesn’t technically stop spam. I’m positive it would add friction to the spamming process and also close legitimate vulnerabilities. I’ve unscientifically tested this with normies: they agree that there is a difference between hacking/attacking a system with spam versus officially supporting the spam. Normies don’t have a say in bitcoin now, but theoretically, they will at some point, and we should make it easier, not harder, for normies to join us.

§The Oppositiion

The only person that I’ve read that has given critiques that aren’t entirely about lack of miner support and aren’t about the precedent of forking is @Super Testnet (who also, admirably, developed and advocated for a URSF).

Setting aside Super Testnet, an aspect that has shaken me is that the resistance to this BIP is almost entirely lacking in substance. The focus has been mostly on Luke, not the BIP. Embarrassingly, I didn’t even know Luke existed 18 months ago. That so much of the BIP pushback is connected to Luke specifically speaks to the high school-level mentality these detractors have.

The messaging by other prominent anti-BIP-110 folks has been bizarre. There is an assymmetry: it makes sense for pro-BIP-110 people to advocate and post about this as much as they can. They need to publicize and gain node support, especially in light of censorship in various forums. But for those against BIP-110? Why are they sending messages about this without a URSF?

It’s understandable that well-known folks send one or two posts about how BIP-110 is dangerous to bitcoin – I can understand this. There’s value in showing what you support or fight against, for the record. This is partially why I’m writing this now – to have something on the record. But anything more than one or two posts stating opposition to BIP-110 is confusing. Why would well-known bitcoin figures post multiple times opposing the BIP? There is no URSF. What are they hoping to accomplish? A stalled chain, and/or a chain split? How is that good for anyone? The antics, jokes, and lies on social media regarding BIP-110 being delayed or called off is similarly odd.

If there were a soft fork that was building momentum for more than half a year, that I didn’t agree with, I would heartily advocate for a URSF, even if the apparent support for the soft fork was as low as a solid 1-5% of nodes. In summary, that there is no widely used URSF for this situation, where anywhere from 5% to 20% is positively in favor of BIP-110, is both unfortunate and bizarre.

§Mandatory Signalling

I would not be so anxious for Saturday and the possibility that the BIP-110 chain stalls out if there was anyone at all out there who indicated that they would redouble efforts to rein in the unwanted changes over the past 1-3 years. There’s been no indication of this, making Saturday very meaningful to me.

The prospect of anti-BIP-110 users subordinating their duties to the miners, and the prospect the miners would not keep the chain intact, has the potential to be devastating, to me and probably to what we know as bitcoin. Devastation might not be immediate, but I see a miniscule likelihood that there’s any saving bitcoin at that point.

To be clear, activating/using a URSF would be totally different and totally justifiable – I would not be in favor of a URSF in this case, but there would be a huge amount of solace in the fact that the nodes are calling the shots.

§Conclusion

Core’s unwanted changes were terrible. The subordination of judgment to the miners is worse. When miners and developers are calling all the shots, bitcoin turns into something else – something that is hardly worth defending, much less advocating for. Why would I care about or support a run-of-the-mill crypto asset that’s controlled by a few connected parties? Having the name “bitcoin” and the symbol “BTC” would provide some runway to longevity, but the destination would be no different than formerly venerable brands that were taken over by powers that did not honor its origins.

Run BIP-110. Save Bitcoin.