Is BIP110 gonna take your coins?

There's a lot of FUD floating around about BIP110 and one of the main guys pushing this fear is Greg Maxwell. He went on to explain how BIP110 could potentially lead to your coins being taken away. So, here's the profile of the user Greg claims could get their coins confiscated by BIP110. And remember, you need to tick off all these boxes: 1 You'd have to be pretty tech-savvy, actually locking your coins with op_if using Taproot. (Using op_if outside of Taproot is fine). Plus, you'd need to be using advanced wallets like Nunchuk. Not sure what other wallets use op_if in Taproot. 2 On top of being advanced, you'd also have to be totally clueless about the op_if debate, the controversy, and the new temporary rules from BIP110. 3 You'd also need to be using an old wallet that won't upgrade to the new rules. 4 You'd be creating a time-locked transaction with op_if in Taproot AFTER BIP110 goes live. Anything before BIP110 is safe. 5 Your complex inheritance setup would need to redeem the coins less than a year after BIP110 kicks in since it's only temporary for a year. 6 You'd have to have more than 128 leaves, making the control block too big, and/or include OP_(not)IF/OP_SUCCESS. It's crucial to get that ALL these conditions must apply to you. If even one doesn't, your coins are totally safe from BIP110.

Yes. Because even if it won't do that now, then future BIPs will keep restricting more and more coins, which will eventually affect all coins. Not only that. In general, if you use anything, which filter enthusiasts don't understand, then you risk being filtered in the future. Which means, that maybe only single-key transactions, without any scripts, are somewhat safe. But who knows, if that kind of community will try to restrict even that in the future. Who knows, if future public keys will be blocked, if they will contain too much ASCII data, just like Luke tried to filter some vanity addresses, starting with "1dice". If he tried to filter that kind of things in the past, then even single-key addresses are risky, if they won't be approved by him, and his followers. Or just use the scripting language as intended: And now, BIP-110 supporters tell you something else: "if your transaction is too complex for us to understand, then we will filter it". While Satoshi did something completely different, and designed Script, to allow a lot of things upfront, which could be handled even by nodes, who doesn't support it directly. In BIP-110 community, the opposite is true: only widely-deployed things can be done, which are present in today's wallets, and for everything else, you have to ask for permission, or risk losing your coins, just because someone else won't understand your Script, and will want to filter it, because of that (a clear example is when they tell you, that anchors from BIP-433 don't exist, are invalid, or they think a spendable UTXO is anyhow related to OP_RETURN). It is more likely to be unaware of BIP-110, than to be unaware of things like locktime, which existed long before Segwit. And BIP-110 supporters still think, that timelocks are unaffected somehow, and people with coins frozen in time, will magically change their scripts, before BIP-110 will activate. Or that they will magically spend their coins after BIP-110 expiration, when a second party, with a different timelock, will sweep these coins before them. Rules should be designed in a way, where outdated wallets will land on the correct chain. If you will use a wallet, which contains Value Overflow Bug, on top of the current rules, then it will still land on today's chain. In case of BIP-110, as long as it is a minority, these "outdated wallets" will land on the old chain instead. No. You need to broadcast it after that. Transaction can be created in 2009, and timelocked to 2026. Then, it is not "created in 2026", but "broadcasted in 2026". And then, your coins are lost. Which won't help you, if there are more than one user on a single coin, and if the second party will do it faster, only because your spending path is blocked by BIP-110. If it won't succeed, then users will lose nothing. And if it will succeed, then future restrictions will be pushed by next BIPs. Which is why it has to fail, because otherwise, there will always be a group, pushing for more and more filters, until it will start affecting their own payments (because this is the only case, where there could be any incentive to stop inventing next filters; if you have nothing to lose, then you can always push for more filters, if you are unaffected). Or just use a multisig, and don't know all keys to your coin. If another party disagrees, then you lose them. Using OP_IF, OP_ELSE and OP_ENDIF means adding three bytes. Going one branch deeper means adding 32 bytes. What is less spammy?

To anyone reading this thread It's important to understand that BIP110 makes temporarily unspendable transactions that make use of op_if in Taproot, and only for those with both the commit and the redeem occurring during the 1 year of BIP110 activity. If you have any coin time locked with op_if in Taproot prior to BIP110 activates, your coin is safe, it's grandfathered in. But here is one of the things ertil claimed on his first post on this thread: What ertil is trying to do here is lies to drum up fear and FUD against BIP110. He claims that any coin time locked at any point since bitcoin was created, will he confiscated by BIP110. If you used op_if outside of Taproot, your coin will be unaffected by BIP110. And even if you did make use of op_if in Taproot, your coin will still be grandfathered in. ertil is straight out lying here. Nothing he writes can be trusted.

If BIP-110 will succeed, then future BIPs will restrict it, too. Because the same trick can be used outside of Taproot, to push any data in a similar way. Which won't save you, if a timelocked transaction sends coins to the restricted address, instead of spending it from that.

You are attempting to make the slippery slope argument. Over 40% of the UTXO set is spam dust UTXOs. Over 85% of Taproot UTXOs are dust spam UTXOs. Over 50% of current block content is spam. LibreRelay and Slipstream spamware are being used by the majority of large spam pools. And meanwhile, core is busy ignoring the problem, rejecting spam filters, and going as far as blowing up existing spam filters. All the while renaming spam as "use cases we have today". Clearly the slippery slope is already happening and it's going towards more spam, not less. BIP110 is a response to the already occurring slippery slope towards the destruction of bitcoin. Bitcoiners will not let you destroy our money. You are full of shit and you make no sense at all. There is no such thing as "restricted addresses".

Your coins may be frozen anyway, if BIP-110 blocks will be produced once per day. If they are blocked after BIP-110 activation, then they are "restricted". And because of timelocks, nobody will change it before activation, so coins will always be lost in this case.

There are many wallet and non-custodial/shared-custodial inheritance services listed on https://thebitcoinhole.com/inheritance. So people these days don't have to be advanced user to own Taproot address that use OP_IF or deep taptrees. Those people likely unaware of such technical detail. Can you list which wallet that support BIP 110? AFAIK only Bitcoin Knots does that. Whether it's 1 year, forever or other duration, it doesn't change the fact it prevent people from spending their coin for some arbitrary duration. P.S. You really like to create thread with similar topic, Will BIP110 confiscate coin? Your objection to BIP110 ?? Your objections to BIP110 ? Your objections to BIP110? What would Satoshi say about BIP110?

So, yes, it turns out it can lead to confiscation of coins under certain circumstances. And if the rules are further restricted in the future, which they will be because it won't stop spam at all, it will lead to further confiscation. You've made so many threads on BIP110 that I have lost count. You're really wasting your time with this, it's not going to receive majority of hashrate, and please understand that if it does not, then it'll end up an altcoin like BCH. If you think this thing will receive enough hashrate support, then put your money where your mouth is and take a bet with me. How does this sound to you?

He won't. And so far, nobody from BIP-110 side put their coins into a contract like that: https://github.com/jlopp/BIP-110-Futures Because they know, that BIP-110 is supported by 1% or less hashrate, and it will simply fail, or will become just some altcoin, supported by some minority, willing to continuously block other people's coins, and invent new filters.

I want BIP110 to susceed. BIP110 is a good thing. Just like you may want your sports team to win. But you are not stupid enough to think betting on your team will increase it's chances to win anything. Bitcoiners on the BIP110 side are putting our money where our mouth is, where it matters, where it will help BIP110 actually win. You know you can't debate BIP110 on it's actual merits. So you just make the claim that it will lose. And there is actually no such thing as a BIP110 lose. Even if we fail on September (but we won't) that just provides us with a "told you so" giant foam finger for when the spam increases some more, illicit material does get on chain, and core gets the brilliant idea to blow up an other spam filter. That's when we bring out BIP110 v2.0

If that is true, then once the date comes, and you don't have hashrate majority on your side, you will sell all your BTC for BTC110. Otherwise you don't truly support it. If you don't think that your "sports team" will win, why wasting all that time creating infinite threads on BIP110? If the soft fork will not get hashrate majority, then all you were doing was spamming the board, ironically. It's already wasted, and I can take a bet that pays you 20x what you pay me. If you don't take that bet, you don't even believe it in the slightest that it will succeed.

What's all that bullshit about predicting of BIP110 failing? You look like a giant prick with that argument. BIP110 doesn't confiscate anything unless you are dumb enough to throw away your private keys. But throwing away your private keys will cause you to lose yoyr coin in any other aspect of bitcoin, ever since bitcoin was created. BIP110 is a response to the stupidity (or corruption?) of core. BIP110 is a good thing. It needs to susceed in order for bitcoin to survive. BIP110 has to susceed. But even if I knew for a fact that BIP110 would fail, I still would get behind it. You can't argue on the merits of BIP110. So instead, you keep making wild predictions and basing your opinion on those wild predictions. You keep saying BIP110 will fail. So? Even if you were correct, I'd still support BIP110. Over 40% of the UTXO set is spam dust UTXOs. Over 85% of Taproot UTXOs are dust spam UTXOs. Over 50% of current block content is spam. LibreRelay and Slipstream spamware are being used by the majority of large spam pools. And meanwhile, core is busy ignoring the problem, rejecting spam filters, and going as far as blowing up existing spam filters. All the while renaming spam as "use cases we have today".

You're a moron if you believe that. If Bitcoin cannot succeed simply because people decide to waste their money on file storage, then it wouldn't be as successful as it currently is. But, it is a complete nonsense, because Bitcoin has successfully managed to protect people against central banks' inflation for 17 years. It's working exactly as it should, despite the enormous coping spam from people like you who haven't figured out what Bitcoin is, yet. I have argued on the "merits" of BIP110 in a bunch of threads. You, on the other hand, could not even tell that, with hashrate minority, BIP110 would result in an altcoin. But, you're arrogantly certain you're the arbitrator of truth on what spam is and how Bitcoin is doomed to fail because of voluntary transactions.

You need to look into the story of BIP141 and BIP148. BIP141 was a miner activated fork for Segwit. For over a year it was not going anywhere with 70% of the miners refusing to signal for it. Some idiots at core had decided that a handful of centralized mining pools should be the ones deciding on the rules of bitcoin. Than BIP148 came along, it was a user (nodes) activated fork. And with less than 5% of the nodes signalling for it and threatening to invalidate blocks, the miners who had resisted for over a year completely capitulated to the will of the nodes. Miners had very strong incentives to reject Segwit. Losing 20% of their ASICs efficiency and handing out 50% discount fee coupons at a time when fees were at an all time high, none of that sounded very appealing to miners. Yet they folded to the will of just 5% of nodes. This time around, miners have a lot less incentives to resist BIP110. It doesn't take much profit away from them, and it doesn't affect their ASIC performance. And I bet you their PR and legal departments will both tell them yo go along with it. With Segwit, they all bitched like you, they all claimed they would never go for it, and at the last minute, they all folded, and they all acted suddenly as if they were wanting Segwit all along. History will likely repeat in September. And the only losers will be you, the jpeg loving coretards. Miners and highly centralized pools are not getting paid to decide the rules to enforce on themselves. That's just an absurd concept. Nodes decide on the rules now, and nodes wil keep on enforcing the rules.

Yeah, miners usually follow where the majority goes in the end. Users and nodes still have a lot of influence. Same with things like bitcoin betting, people just use the network they trust most.

If feels like it's a democracy, but it really is not. It's counter intuitive and hard to explain. Miners and pools are employees of the neteork, they don't run PR control bitcoin. The network pay the miners to secure the network. And the nodes enforce the rules of the network. If a miner misbehave, the nodes reject his work and cut his paycheck. When Segwit was activated, 70% of the miners refused to get on board with Segwit. So 5% of the nodes basically said "Adopt Segwit or we will start go cut your paycheck and reject your blocks." Miners and pools listened and obeyed. Because they had the choice of mining blocks 95% of the nodes would accept, or mibe blocks that 100% of the nodes would accept. That's how the Segwit upgrade was forced onto the miners by a small loud minority. And the same will happen with BIP110. We have a lot less than 30% of the miner power right now, but we have twice the nodes we had with Segwit, telling the miners what the new rules are. Miners run a business. They are not passionate bitcoiners. They just run a business and they want to get as little disruption as possible. So they will absolutely accept BIP110.

And it was rational, because Segwit didn't block any of their transactions. They could still fill blocks with only non-Segwit transactions, and they would still be accepted. No, because today's miners can become future users. If they agree to block some transactions today, then tomorrow, their own transactions could be blocked by someone else. By supporting BIP-110, they would agree, that "blocking transactions as a concept is acceptable". Which means, that even if they will get more coins today, then they can no longer be sure, that they will be spendable later. And then, mining blocks, that "100% of the nodes would accept" no longer matters, if you can lose your own coins by doing that. For example because someone could send you a payment, which would depend on some data push. And then, by blocking that data push, you will block a payment to your own address, because of dependencies between transactions. Which was not the case when Segwit was introduced. Risking, that some future BIP will block their coins, is far from a "little disruption". And it is a real risk, if users like you want to block things like 2-of-3 multisig in the future, which just pushes more than 200 bytes into the witness space.

This is the old coretard claim that preventing spam on a monetary network is censorship. When confronted with the idea of spam on chain, Satoshi said this: But if Satoshi came back today and said this, you would cry that Satoshi is trying go censor transactions he doesn't like. Conpletely ignoring that these grifters are not interested in money, they just want to abuse and grift on bitcoin. The op_return filter was running, along a dozen or so other spam filters, for over 11 years. Nobody, absolutely nobody complained about getting censored by the op_return filter. Until it became a convenient excuse to blow up the spam filter. Coretards lost all credibility when they called spam filters censorship.

Then why don't you go on a bet with me? If you are certain about your numbers and your knowledge on Bitcoin history, and how "5% of the nodes forced miners in a non-favorable direction for them", and think that history will repeat in September, and "losers like me" will bend over this soft fork, why don't you go on a bet with me? Especially when I'm giving you insane odds, 20:1. We can use escrow, if you don't feel confident that I may not pay you back. You're all arrogance and endless threads, but when it comes to putting your money where this arrogance is, there's only silence.

He's probably just some scamcoiner trying to fuck over Bitcoin by larping as a Bitcoin user in an effort to make his scamcoin more valuable and doesn't have any bitcoin -- would completely explain how he's not just indifferent to hobbling bitcoin he seems to be actively in favor of it. ... and why he deletes peoples posts or abandons his threads and starts new ones when people point out how badly 110 would screw things up (and that is only the flaws we know about, -- given that it's not considered a serious proposal who knows how many more could be lurking). He's not alone, -- I haven't found a single 110 proponent willing to trade their bitcoin for my 110 coins. Is it because they don't really believe it or because they're no-coiners like the real author of 110.