David Noriega

Full stack developer. Entrepreneur. Bitcoin Maximalist. Ancap. Ex-3HO cult. Genealogist. Fully bi-cultural and bi-national MEX/USA.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Please take your time to upgrade your Bitcoin Node with BIP-110 to get rid of all the spam and non monetary junk that is plaguing the Bitcoin blockspace..

[Dathon Ohm / BIP-110 @dathon_ohm]

I am thrilled to announce the first release of the BIP110 activation client (link below).

By running this code, you are actively protecting Bitcoin's usefulness and soundness as money.

A huge thanks to our hundreds of contributors and supporters who have brought us this far.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@riekert_billy Its paper Bitcoin while it lasts..

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Bitcoin only really goes up if it is on self custody.

Get your BTC off exchanges and custodial wallets and on to your self custodial device (preferably seedsigner).

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@MBarrantesbtc Creativity.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@SuperTestnet @cguida6 Not "innocent users" but bad developers.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Core can still make a comeback if they fix the inscription bug and remove the uncapped OP_RETURN asap.

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

@MajorianBTC Core losing their monopoly is good, but creating a new monopoly on Knots (with no "alternative node") isn't.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@kinetic_finance @LynAldenContact Agreed but the producers did lie it wasn't about purgatory.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@JulieBorowski Anarchism requires a fearless trust that humanity is basically benevolent.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

You got your history wrong. The New York agreement was an attempt to control Bitcoin by miners, exchanges and shitcoiners. In the end it became irrelevant because pleb Bitcoiners refuse to hard fork to change the block size to an objectively arbitrary size and because it would have set a precedent that undermined immutability of Bitcoin.

Almost all miners did not want Segwit without the blocksize increase because it would have killed their covert Asicboost advantage, most notably Jihan Woo the owner of Antminer.

When ShaolinFry's UASF started gaining traction Jihan Wu decided it was not worth fighting it because it would have resulted in a fierce chain split. Miners would not have been able to exchange their coins for months and would have gone bankrupt. Instead Wu teamed up with Craig Wright and Roger Ver and created Bitcoin Cash via their blocksize increase hard fork.

The lesson learned here is that miners most likely will not fight BIP110 because it is just not worth it for them, even less now that the price of Bitcoin is 70x higher and there is no covert hidden advantage. They have not even come up with a URSF.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@uvas23 @0x6aApp @therealanderand @cguida6 Yes it will.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@uvas23 @0x6aApp @therealanderand @cguida6 Some pools are seriously reconsidering adding spam to their blocks (because they already risk their blocks orphaning), and a lot of blocks are BIP110 complaint even if they are not signalling for it. That is all that is required.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@uvas23 @0x6aApp @therealanderand @cguida6 Miners have absolutely no need to disregard BIP110 (unlike the Segwit UASF in 2017). The risk of an orphaned block is just too high, not to mention the risk of a split chain where they will not be able to sell their block rewards for weeks.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@ericyakes @mattkratter @SpaceDenver @_DannyKnowles Why would a billionaire need to sell $2.5M in Bitcoin?

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@uvas23 @BitcoinMonk21 @retardedpleb @stephjenks941 @adam3us That's the whole point. BIP110 will always contain the hash of previous block because that previous block is still BIP110 complaint so it will never be a an invalid block. Not so with a "legacy" block as the block itself is invalid.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@uvas23 @BitcoinMonk21 @retardedpleb @stephjenks941 @adam3us That's the thing. BIP110 blocks are still valid because they have stricter rules. That's the whole point of a UASF. It is the non BIP110 blocks that will be invalid because they have less rules.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

In this case it is not technically a fork, its a chain split. BIP110 can survive with 20% or even less of hash
rate, while miners on the other chain have a lot to lose. And I mean a lot: millions and millions of dollars. It is simply not worth it for them, because while the chain split resolves nobody will be able to cash in rewards as the exchanges and wallets will rather wait until the split resolves and it can take months.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Wrong. BCH split because they realized that they would lose vs the segwit UASF which had much less miner support than the current BIP110 UASF. They decided to split because they were mining with covert asicboost and did not want to lose their advantage. Nothing of the sort is in play here now.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

BIP110 does not work like that because nodes do not mine blocks. It merely discards mined blocks that contain spam. It will be the miners that don't follow BIP110 new rules that risk losing their block rewards and considering that revenue from spam is currently very sparse they will comply.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

@Pledditor Who are you IRL?

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Your unfiltered node's mempool is handling spam data that has no useful monetary use and therefore it is affecting as a whole the Bitcoin network. Your node is being leeched by bad actors, and therefore you have less of an incentive to run it. You can prevent that leeching by filtering non monetary transactions and not relayning blocks that contain them.

[David Noriega @BlueDavid]

Bitcoin has no opinion about legitimate use. It is simply money. It worked fine as such for 13 years before Core started FAFOing in 2022, and BIP110 only reverts those changes to that state.

HTLCs are solely part of the Lightning network and have nothing to do with on chain transactions and therefore not affected by BIP110.