Yobz⚡️

Retired naval aviator. Disruptive tech enthusiast. Background in economics and blowing things up.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@Jethroe111 And something tells me the US govt might not know their boldface cold for this self inflicted out-of-control debt situation... 👀

Translation, don't sit back and wait for the government to save you. Own scarcity.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

In other words, bitcoin is system built around economic incentives...

[Parman - Paranoid Bitcoin Mentor 🔑 @parman_the]

My new insight after BIP110...

The necessary ingredient to defend Bitcoin is not mining, nor running a node.

It is accepting payment (or buying), on the chain with the rules you prefer.

Running a node supports you doing that without trusting anyone. And you don't necessarily need to run the node to behaving this way, and decide what is valuable to you.

Simply running a bip110 node, but then when push comes to shove, not accepting payment exclusively on that chain (or buying), means that you haven't really put your money where your mouth is.

We Bitcoiners have forked off from Fiat, by preferring to save in Bitcoin even though the monetary network is much smaller.

Now there is a fork of Bitcoin, and people are waiting to see what happens rather than preparing to receive payment on the new version.

This means there isn't consensus, even if people are willing to run bip110 nodes.

In the absence of unanimous miner and node support, what's needed is signalling that PEOPLE are willing to put their money where their mouth is, before the fork, while each of us are observing the intentions of the others, supporting it, publicising it, and building consensus about exactly that, not just running the node. Because nobody knows if the others are willing to die on the hill. We Bitcoiners are dying on the hill against fiat but not necessarily defensive changes that may not be needed right now and still can be done in the future.

I support bip110, but wasn't willing to die on the hill because I like the defensive nature of the fork (it's not a new feature fork which I have been against eg CTV), but I didn't see it as an emergency critical fix, since other attemps in the future to defend bitcoin are still possible, especially when the threat becomes more obvious to people.

Another reason I supported it is because if it fails, then nothing is lost, nobody gets hurt.

AND if it succeeds nobody gets hurt, except the spammers.

If only more people saw this. Maybe next time.

[Dylan LeClair @DylanLeClair]

Re: BIP 110 post mortem.

Miners don't control Bitcoin, and pools don't control miners. Pools are payout coordinators for thousands of individual operators who can repoint hashrate elsewhere in ten minutes. A pool signaling against its miners' interests just loses the hashrate.

Miners exchange hashrate for block rewards, then sell BTC to pay energy bills in fiat. If there's minimal economic support behind a fork, the rewards can't be monetized and mining it is burning money. Hashrate follows the buyside, because that's how they stay in business. That's what "economic nodes" means.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

🎯. Whether unpopular or not, this is a valid observation.

I've been very surprised how many prominent accounts seemed to miss this dynamic completely.

The reason the concept of something like bitcoin even has a chance at surviving centuries is because it's an incentives game.

While everyone has the right to overlay their personal ideologies, bitcoin the protocol can't give a shit about them and must operate on the cumulative inputs of its participants' economic incentives. That's how it wins.

[Michael Ruiz @sovmindset]

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think a lot of the messaging that came out of the block size wars, particularly the idea that “nodes control the network,” is misleading and has left people operating on faulty assumptions, and now thats what were seeing with BIP-110.

Imo, nodes enforce the rules they choose to follow, but they don’t compel miners, businesses, exchanges, wallets, or other economic actors to follow those same rules without consensus.

SegWit2x’s failure is often framed as proof that node operators ultimately control Bitcoin. I think that interpretation misses a much more complicated reality about how power, coordination, and economic incentives actually work in the network.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@marsspitsbarz

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@ThatKindWarrior @DaleStarkA10

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@Jethroe111 The sweet perks of flying red air.

Unless you end up landing without the jet...

Glad it worked out for you to share the experience. 🤙

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@Jethroe111 Ah I stand corrected.

Respect for dating yourself with "Vietnam era." 🫡

Glad it functioned as advertised to the tax payers. Need someone to keep Saylor in check 😉

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

💯

[AA ⚡️ @AAStack]

I want to give credit to the Bitcoiners who support BIP 110 but never let the disagreement become personal.

We debated.
We disagreed.
We challenged each other’s ideas.

But we never forgot that we have far more in common than we have dividing us.

We all want a stronger Bitcoin.
We all value sound money.
We all believe the current monetary system is broken.

We simply reached different conclusions on one proposal.

Healthy disagreement is a strength, not a weakness.

Respect is earned by those who can defend their ideas without forgetting we’re on the same side of a much bigger fight.

Special mention to these legends, whom I deeply admire and respect for everything they have and continue to contribute to Bitcoin and the community.

@PaulaBTCEdge
@TomerStrolight
@LawrenceLepard
@boomer_btc
@Jethroe111
@Scavacini777
@RC_Free_D

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

Too contentious for its activation thresholds.

At this stage in Bitcoin's adoption, mandatory protocol level changes need to have higher levels of social consensus before risking a split. BIP's not designed with that in mind will be treated as an attack regardless of whether they are "good or "bad."

Glass half full...maybe this is a nice warm up before quantum enters the room 👀💣

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@CaminaDrummer4 @Jethroe111 Oh boy. Gonna need another drink.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

All good. I'm a mentally damaged in the head retired tailhooker. I enjoy being dunked on. George would understand. 😎

Jokes aside, Yes, I get your logic about miner game theory and probability etc. I think that because of your logic, a split is probable and then I predict that the 110 chain will not have majority hashrate for the reasons I've outlined.

I'm guessing you will say that is illogical because it does not maximize miner profitability, but I would say that it is logical because they are thinking about long term profitability and not supporting a proposal that was structured the way that it was for the other reasons I've outlined.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

Yes I understand the difference. That was only to give you a line in the sand that you can hold me accountable to regarding a hypothetical split and it's post split hash metrics over time.

If a 110 split has 90% of total hash between the two chains within 12 months, I will be the first to tell you I was dead wrong.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

"Is it wise to virtue signal in favor of spam and lose %20 of your blocks?"

⬆️ Haha. I still struggle not reading this as a rhetorical question.

I feel like your rhetorical answer is "no" but based on how I see it, the miners will in fact choose to mine all blocks that are currently valid. I assess that this will be the case for the majority of hash over the coming months.

If I'm wrong, I encourage you to come dunk on me. 🤙

I'm feeling like the logic has been outlined for both of us here, so maybe we just agree to disagree on the most probabalistic outcome and circle back when we have new data in few weeks.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

@CaminaDrummer4 @Jethroe111 I expect the metrics for any hypothetical split to be worse than the same metrics over time we saw for BCH.

This is my base case. If new data comes in, I will re assess.

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

I don't disagree with your logic flow. I disagree with the question (which I'm reading as rhetorical) about which chain is the wisest to mine.

The way I see the game, most miners/hashrate will choose to view the way 110 was proposed as an attack and react in a way that sets a precedent for future proposals to not be structured that way.

Each time there has been contention around a hard fork over the last 10years, bitcoin participants (including miners) maximize for what is in their best long term interest. The only way bitcoin thrives is if what is in the long term interests of its participants is also in the interest of the protocol. I think we all agree on that or we wouldnt be here. The way 110 is structured, the potential slippery slope risks are not worth any short term gain. This is my perspective. I respect and encourage perspectives that see the incentives differently.

[AA ⚡️ @AAStack]

BIP-110 fact-check: 3 claims circulating right now that are false, and why.

Claim 1: “It removes OP_IF.” False. No opcode is removed. The BIP caps data pushes inside scripts (~256 bytes). This matters because if OP_IF were actually removed, Lightning would break HTLCs depend on it. Anyone telling you an opcode is being deleted hasn’t read the code they’re endorsing.

Claim 2: “It doesn’t affect any real transactions.” False. Data-carriers are the target, but there’s collateral: pre-signed transactions that violate the new caps can’t confirm for a year. That hits some vault, inheritance, and recovery setups made before activation, coins locked to spending paths the new rules reject. Small population. Real people. Real money.

Claim 3: “Everything is grandfathered in.” False, half true, and the missing half is the important half. Existing data on-chain stays (soft forks only bind new blocks). Existing spending paths are not protected. “Your JPEGs are safe, your pre-signed vault might not be” is a strange thing to call grandfathering.

The argument that defeats itself: “55% threshold is smart because mining is captured by 6 players.” Follow that logic one more step: if miners are captured, then a 55% bar means a captured majority can rewrite Bitcoin’s consensus rules. The 95% norm isn’t tradition it’s the armor that killed SegWit2x. Lower it once, and every future fork including ones you’ll hate, inherits the precedent.

Verify everything yourself. The BIP text is public. The Lightning specs are public. Don’t trust, including me, including OGs ⚡️

[Yobz⚡️ @yobz154]

I re read your points re the game you describe. I believe I understand the logic of that game. I just see most node runners being paranoid about any protocol change, and that being the stronger incentive in this instance. That paranoia causes actors to reject the game you describe completely and opt to send a message about controversial change proposals with a relatively low activation threshold

[AA ⚡️ @AAStack]

Not a waste of time at all.

I’ve learned and continue to learn about Bitcoin’s technical side and history every day because of the BIP 110 debate. Not to mention the psychological and social aspect of it and the wonderful memes.

Overall, it’s been a blessing. It has helped me filter out weak or superficial connections and make room for stronger, more genuine ones going forward. ⚡️🫡