Gus..

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

@VIhnatiuk @utexocom You don't know what you're talking about

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

Durante 17 años, nunca hubo un Nodes-Pool ni un Templates-Pool, por lo que tuvimos que crear uno. Una vez que #BIP110 se active, esto será más necesario que nunca.
Los Node Runners le dirán a los Miners qué minar, algo que debería haber sucedido hace mucho tiempo.

[PyBLØCK @_PyBlock_]

@Libertad2140 @GrassFedBitcoin For 17 years, there was never a Nodes-Pool or Templates-Pool, so we had to create one.

Once #BIP110 is activated, this will be more necessary than ever.

Node Runners will tell Miners what to mine—something that, in our opinion, should have happened a long time ago.

🫡

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@_PyBlock_ @GrassFedBitcoin

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@StephenThePleb @GrassFedBitcoin https://t.co/FgJ9pHu5gC

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@GrassFedBitcoin Did you know that with your node you can create templates and which miners participate in @_PyBlock_ choose them at random?
My node has already offered more than 33,000.
The best Devs work on decentralization tools, now we have to contribute our part.
https://t.co/wW2ZjDzOk1

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

La construcción de plantillas está bien encaminada hacia la descentralización.
BIP110 es necesario para que esto tenga alguna relevancia.
La construcción de plantillas del lado del minero es irrelevante si estamos centralizados a nivel de nodo.

[Softfork Mechanic #BIP-110 @GrassFedBitcoin]

Template construction is well on the way to becoming decentralized.

BIP110 is required for this to have any significance.

Miner-side template construction is irrelevant if we're centralized at the node level.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

Todos aceptan Bip110.
No hay un solo nodo en la red que este en contra, ni siquiera el tuyo.
Gracias por la publicidad @DavidFBailey !

[David Bailey🇵🇷 $2.0mm/btc is the floor @DavidFBailey]

The BIP-110 attack has really rallied a lot of different Bitcoin factions together and it’s a beautiful thing to see. Bitcoin is 👑.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@1914ad

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"El uso de palas de nieve enfrenta bajo apoyo antes del invierno."
No es invierno. No todo el mundo está comprando palas de nieve todavía. No puedes decirle a la gente que las palas de nieve no tienen valor porque nadie está usando palas de nieve en verano.👏

[Adam Simecka @AdamSimecka]

David, all bias aside. One man to another.

Do you honestly think that measuring support from the mining pools, at this stage, is indicative of the end result?

We are currently in a completely optional phase of the BIP110 activation window called "Miner Activated Soft Fork" where miners have the option (but not obligation) to flip the bit and "choose" to activate the soft fork if they want.

If people actually want to understand where this is going, that isn't a reliable metric to measure.

People are getting tired of analogies at this point, and I don't blame them. This is the equivalent of putting out a headline that says "Snow Shovel usage faces low support ahead of winter." It isn't winter. Not everyone is buying snow shovels yet. You can't tell people snow shovels have no value because no one is using snow shovels in July.

The correct way to measure growth would be to look at what people are actually doing with their nodes. This includes the big players too, of course.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"BIP-110 es en realidad para mantener a Bitcoin como dinero sólido y descentralizado.
Siempre necesitaremos ir a la batalla porque hay fuerzas poderosas que NO quieren una red monetaria descentralizada o dinero sólido.
Estas batallas solo terminan cuando ellos han ganado."

[Lilly @JustaLillyBit]

I hear ya- but the part that really gets lost is that we are almost already completely centralised- without this battle, nodes won't matter so you really will need to change your mission statement.

BIP-110 is in fact to keep bitcoin as sound money and to keep it decentralised.

We will always need to go to battle because there is powerful forces that do NOT want a monetary decentralized network or sound money. These battles only end when they have won.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

Después de la señalización obligatoria, creemos que la demanda se mantiene incluso si otros proveedores no la ven.
El mercado determinará si continuamos minando bloques BIP110; no influencers, proveedores, ni grandes empresas fuera de contacto con los Bitcoiners y sus necesidades

[Roughnecks @Roughnecks110]

https://t.co/ZOdhIscZ6S

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@MarcanoFilms La única derrota posible, es que nosotros mismos desistamos. No hay oposición.
https://t.co/bgDBblNmqY

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"Hasta la fecha, esencialmente no hay oposición a nivel técnico. No hay un solo nodo ejecutando un URSF."
Mi nodo:
23 peers
Bip110 = 4 (fuerzan/aceptan bloques bip 110)
No Bip110 = 19 (no fuerzan 110/aceptan bloques 110)
//NO HAY RECHAZO//

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

Sabias que con tu nodo podes crear plantillas y que mineros que participan en @_PyBlock_ las elijan al azar?
Mi nodo ya ofreció mas de 33000 plantillas.
Los mejores Devs trabajan en herramientas de descentralización, ahora nos toca aportar lo nuestro.

[PyBLØCK @_PyBlock_]

Are you a Miner?

Mine on PyBLØCK using any of the our #BIP110 Stratums so that Node Runners accept your Blocks.

Are you a Node Runner?

Share your #BIP110 Templates on PyBLØCK—which Miners must work on—so that your Node accepts their Blocks.

Pool of Nodes, Pool of Pools.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@worshipbitcoin https://t.co/bgDBblNmqY

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"Hasta la fecha, esencialmente no hay oposición a nivel técnico. No hay un solo nodo ejecutando un URSF."
Mi nodo:
23 peers
Bip110 = 4 (fuerzan/aceptan bloques bip 110)
No Bip110 = 19 (no fuerzan 110/aceptan bloques 110)
//NO HAY RECHAZO//

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

Arte que perdurara por siglos.

[Kilombino #BIP110 now or never. @Kilombino_]

https://t.co/w7VCu3yjG8

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

@Kilombino_ 😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👏👏👏👏👏

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"Hasta la fecha, esencialmente no hay oposición a nivel técnico. No hay un solo nodo ejecutando un URSF."
Mi nodo:
23 peers
Bip110 = 4 (fuerzan/aceptan bloques bip 110)
No Bip110 = 19 (no fuerzan 110/aceptan bloques 110)
//NO HAY RECHAZO//

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

The requirement for consensus is necessarily at a conceptual level, not a technical nuance. If it was a technical matter, it would be impossible to softfork ever, since nobody would be running the code before it is written.

At a conceptual level, all nodes enforced the BIP110 rules until late 2025, and a supermajority still do today.

The requirement for consensus is also not absolute. Very few softforks in Bitcoin's history have had true consensus. P2SH was a big battle. Segwit saw 20% of the community leave over it. Taproot saw Core abuse their position to nearly conflict on activation method.
Generally, "objections" that are ill founded or sufficiently addressed do not impede moving forward.
Before BIP110 was proposed, there were zero objections to the ideas put into it, and there are still no sound objections to BIP110 to date.

At a technical level, softforks do not require consensus, only significant support and less opposition. To date, there is essentially zero opposition at the technical level. Not a single node is running a URSF.

Conceptually, Segwit had ~80% network support, and ~5.2% actually enforcing. Bcash (the anti-Segwit URSF) launched with ~2.5%.
BIP110 for comparison today has ~80% network support, and ~15% actually enforcing. And again, zero visible URSF nodes.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"Antes de que se propusiera BIP110, no había objeciones a las ideas incluidas en él y hasta la fecha no hay objeciones sólidas a BIP110.
A nivel técnico, los softforks no requieren consenso, solo un apoyo significativo y menos oposición."

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

The requirement for consensus is necessarily at a conceptual level, not a technical nuance. If it was a technical matter, it would be impossible to softfork ever, since nobody would be running the code before it is written.

At a conceptual level, all nodes enforced the BIP110 rules until late 2025, and a supermajority still do today.

The requirement for consensus is also not absolute. Very few softforks in Bitcoin's history have had true consensus. P2SH was a big battle. Segwit saw 20% of the community leave over it. Taproot saw Core abuse their position to nearly conflict on activation method.
Generally, "objections" that are ill founded or sufficiently addressed do not impede moving forward.
Before BIP110 was proposed, there were zero objections to the ideas put into it, and there are still no sound objections to BIP110 to date.

At a technical level, softforks do not require consensus, only significant support and less opposition. To date, there is essentially zero opposition at the technical level. Not a single node is running a URSF.

Conceptually, Segwit had ~80% network support, and ~5.2% actually enforcing. Bcash (the anti-Segwit URSF) launched with ~2.5%.
BIP110 for comparison today has ~80% network support, and ~15% actually enforcing. And again, zero visible URSF nodes.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"P2SH fue una gran batalla. Segwit vio que el 20% de la comunidad se fue por ello. Taproot vio a Core abusar de su posición para casi entrar en conflicto sobre el método de activación.
Las "objeciones" que están mal fundamentadas o suficientemente abordadas no impiden avanzar."

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

The requirement for consensus is necessarily at a conceptual level, not a technical nuance. If it was a technical matter, it would be impossible to softfork ever, since nobody would be running the code before it is written.

At a conceptual level, all nodes enforced the BIP110 rules until late 2025, and a supermajority still do today.

The requirement for consensus is also not absolute. Very few softforks in Bitcoin's history have had true consensus. P2SH was a big battle. Segwit saw 20% of the community leave over it. Taproot saw Core abuse their position to nearly conflict on activation method.
Generally, "objections" that are ill founded or sufficiently addressed do not impede moving forward.
Before BIP110 was proposed, there were zero objections to the ideas put into it, and there are still no sound objections to BIP110 to date.

At a technical level, softforks do not require consensus, only significant support and less opposition. To date, there is essentially zero opposition at the technical level. Not a single node is running a URSF.

Conceptually, Segwit had ~80% network support, and ~5.2% actually enforcing. Bcash (the anti-Segwit URSF) launched with ~2.5%.
BIP110 for comparison today has ~80% network support, and ~15% actually enforcing. And again, zero visible URSF nodes.

[Gus.. @Libertad2140]

"A nivel conceptual, todos los nodos aplicaron las reglas BIP110 hasta finales de 2025, y una supermayoría aún lo hace hoy en día.
El requisito de consenso tampoco es absoluto. Muy pocos softforks en la historia de Bitcoin han tenido un verdadero consenso."

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

The requirement for consensus is necessarily at a conceptual level, not a technical nuance. If it was a technical matter, it would be impossible to softfork ever, since nobody would be running the code before it is written.

At a conceptual level, all nodes enforced the BIP110 rules until late 2025, and a supermajority still do today.

The requirement for consensus is also not absolute. Very few softforks in Bitcoin's history have had true consensus. P2SH was a big battle. Segwit saw 20% of the community leave over it. Taproot saw Core abuse their position to nearly conflict on activation method.
Generally, "objections" that are ill founded or sufficiently addressed do not impede moving forward.
Before BIP110 was proposed, there were zero objections to the ideas put into it, and there are still no sound objections to BIP110 to date.

At a technical level, softforks do not require consensus, only significant support and less opposition. To date, there is essentially zero opposition at the technical level. Not a single node is running a URSF.

Conceptually, Segwit had ~80% network support, and ~5.2% actually enforcing. Bcash (the anti-Segwit URSF) launched with ~2.5%.
BIP110 for comparison today has ~80% network support, and ~15% actually enforcing. And again, zero visible URSF nodes.