"But but but... Our cRypTo projects in the #Bitcoin ecosystem will be destroyed if #BIP110 gets adopted" Yes, we mean exactly that 😅

After BIP-110 activation: - [your new idea of a parasitical protocol on Bitcoin] doesn't work - breaks multiple things [on your existing shitcoins-on-Bitcoin] - doesn't have economic or technical consensus [among shitcoiners] Correct.

🎉 BIP-110 SIGNALING BLOCK! Block 953,488 signals for BIP-110 Miner: OCEAN (BIP110) BIP-110 status: thebitcoinportal.com/live/no… mempool.guide/block/00000000…

Bitcoiners that signal for BIP-110 are just maxis from 2022.

🤣🤣🤣

The main reason I didn't merge privatebroadcast to @BitcoinKnots, was that I judged it to be underreviewed and prone to bugs. Since Core merged it in January, there were several followup fixes proving I was right, even before 31.0 was released. They went ahead and released it anyway.

"BIP-110 catches almost no spam." That's become the main argument against it. By raw transaction count, it's not entirely wrong. But count is the wrong metric. After decoding every OP_RETURN on Bitcoin for the last 60 days: 91% is now one funded protocol: Alkanes -> Millions of tiny mints BIP-110 won't touch (and shouldn't, that's relay policy's job). But those mints exist because contracts were deployed for them. - Deployment = a WASM binary in a Taproot reveal. 627 of them in 60 days. - Every single one rejected by BIP-110. You don’t stop a metaprotocol by filtering its mints. You stop it at deployment. 👇 blockspaceweekly.substack.co…

Polychain-backed Botanix Labs is shutting down its Bitcoin L2 after four years. No downtime, no hacks, 25 million transactions processed, Chainlink and OKX integrated. It worked. Nobody came. "Insufficient demand for Bitcoin-native DeFi." Bitcoiners don't want DeFi on Bitcoin. They want Bitcoin to be money. The things succeeding right now (Bark, Cashu, Lightning, ecash mints) are payments and privacy, not yield farming. The market is telling builders something important.

I'd like to pay homage to Mr Kratter. If Bitcoin was ever to survive the fiat industrial complex, it'd be thanks to bitcoiners like him. The man could be enjoying a peaceful & comfy fiat retirement but decided to risk it all to pursue Satoshi's quest to separate money from state.

Below is a known Epstein associate's opinion on BIP 110.

Honest question to $MSTR holders, how will you believe anything that @saylor says from now on? He lied right to your faces.

RDTS is currently the _only_ way. There are no alternatives or counter-fork proposed at this point. If RDTS isn't locked-in by August, signalling becomes mandatory, and blocks that don't signal are invalid. Miners do not get the option to impede the softfork.

Miners signal that they are ready. It's not a decision. Their deadline is August. If they don't get their act together by then, they are fired and their blocks will be rejected by the network.

Basically the position all miners should have. Miners don't decide the rules; they just follow them.

This is the appropriate stance to take. It says that as a business, you have tested the incoming UASF and you are ready to adapt to changing consensus rules. No serious business in Bitcoin can afford to appear negligent when it comes this. Last time plenty of businesses made announcements similar to the one below, and those that went further offering more vocal support increased their popularity and gained loyal customers as a result - @coinkite and @BULLBITCOIN_ being two great examples.

Unpopular opinion: Core isn't enabling "data use case" to support miners. Core is enabling "data use case" to weaken the monetary use case. The only use case that the banking cartel has an issue with.

Number of BIP110 signalling blocks: 25 Number of URSF signalling blocks: 0

I think I’ve finally read and heard enough of the BIP-110 pro/con arguments and I just don’t find those against it very compelling at all given what it does. And I don’t think apathy is an appropriate response to the issue either. Bitcoin lives because node runners always choose