Re: Is Knots/BIP110 meant to create a fork?

So DaveF started a thread that's kinda misleading and he's just deleting all my replies to it. Here's what he wrote: I don't really use Reddit so I can’t say much about it. But one thing’s clear, that post is still up while most pro-BIP110 stuff here gets taken down, moved, locked, or you just get banned. Reddit might be all in for BIP110, but this place really seems to be all about spam and weird bitcoin memes. The censorship here is worse than I've seen in many other spots. Knots has been on this path since way back, long before the spam wars kicked off. And honestly, if you’re against preferential peering, you should check out Peter Toad's LibreRelay. It’s a node client based on core that’s all about cranking up the spam on bitcoin. It has zero filtering and goes all in for preferential peering. It’s made for miners looking to pile on more spam for cheaper. I honestly think core is a vulnerability and a total mess. The network doesn’t want spam; it aims for bitcoin as a currency. Those core 30 node operators deserve to be run out of town. That’s just ridiculous. Do you really think Luke created Knots to fork off with the minority hash a decade before core 30 was even a thing? If you genuinely think that preferential peering exists just to force a hard fork, why not ask Peter Toad why his software does the same? You really think Peter Toad is trying to push miners away from the network? Core supporters told us we were gonna fail when we only had 3% of the nodes using Knots. Now look at us.

Of course it is. After block 961632, Knots will switch to a different chain, if the majority of miners won't support it. It is not a part of Bitcoin Core. It is an alternative client, based on it. Why a full decade before? Just since BIP-110, it is programmed to fork after block 961632, if it will be in a minority. No, because his client does not reject blocks, after a given point in time, like Knots do. If you cannot point at the code, and explain it, then you probably don't understand, how it works. Which means, that your posts are based on "beliefs", instead of facts. Because this is what the code is doing here and now. And even links from sites like https://bip110.org/ agree on that: If you think it is false, then you should justify it with something stronger, than "I don't believe it". The first option, "failing", is directly explained in pro-BIP-110 articles. The second option is logical, if you want a chain, that is moving forward, while the majority of miners is not supporting it. If you have 1% miners, mining BIP-110 chain, then you produce around one block per day. Unless you change the code, which means hard-forking, or making other adjustments, to make it working in a minority. It's not a secret: it is literally in Bitcoin Knots source code, and people pointed at relevant fragments at least a few times. Forking is not a "secret". It is clearly visible, how many miners are signalling for BIP-110. There are even sites, that can simulate scenarios, based on the hashrate support for a given side. And then, hard-forking is just a logical next step. Unless you want to claim, that BIP-110 miners will keep producing one block per day, and will patiently wait for the difficulty to drop. And they will mine at a loss, while being unable to sell BIP-110 coins for the same price as BTC, just to keep the BIP-110 chain running. Because this is what they would need, if they would be in a minority.

Of course there is no question that BIP110 will fork, it's in the name: RDTS or reduced data temporary soft fork. (emphasis on the S in RDTS) The claim is that the code was secretly designed to hard fork. And the claim is that preferencial peeering is part of this secret design for a hard fork. This is false. BIP110 is based on Knots 29. And Knots has always done preferential peering for reasons that have nothing to do with some eventual hard fork. DaveF claims that a hard fork is the only possible reason for preferential peering. If so, is DaveF and his ilk making the claim that LibreRelay also is planning to hard fork the spam miners from the rest of the network?

Fork? A new bitcoin cash? We all have seen thia before. They can fork and i will selling my forked coins instantly

Actually it was CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez who IMO crossed a line a couple of times in a couple of other places. Just didn't want it in that thread. Yup, I don't see why some people have had such a hard time with that. There are plenty of posts to discuss opinion and views about what why how is going to happen in the beginning of August. Having 1 place to bounce around a tech discussion about it did not seem like the worst idea. LR does not have the code to reject blocks is does not like, so it will always follow the chain with the most work. Although I cannot speak to the true thoughts of the people who wrote the code, since it is more permissive allowing more transactions in their mempools they probably wanted to talk to nodes that have them. 110 has less transactions in it's mempool since it limits what it accepts. If it talks to .30 nodes or LR nodes they still get all the TXs in the mempool and then they can ignore the ones they don't want. -Dave

I have been looking around BIP-110 articles, proposal and all the other pages I could find for more than half an hour and no where can I find any one single place where preferential peering is mentioned.  Which considering it is an important aspect, it does look like a 'hidden' design.  As in.  How many people will actually open the Code and look through it to find this line of code, And it is obviously preferential peering to forcefully integrate the BIP-110 nodes as a majority.  Why would it not be mentioned, this is a cunning strategy to protect your own herd. Now I do not know why you keep hoping this does not end up being a Hard Fork.  The BIP-110 supporters do not seem to even want to consider backing up a little bit.  You are intruders in a community who does NOT want Censorship and you never even tried to put an effort and at the very least pretend to be friends.  You came out straight away with insults, personal attacks et cetera trying to promote how restricting financial transactions and subjectively splitting them in 'Financial and Non Financial transactions' is better for everyone.  It is not, it will never be. You can turn words upside down, you can forcefully mostly integrate only your own community in the network, you can lie and mislead, at the end of the day the facts remain the same. Your network will continue to be stubborn and stupid and this will be a Hard Fork as your network will NOT reach majority either and then you can finally cry your tears in a bucket.

No, no. Not instantly. Hold them for a few months/until the next BTC cycle peak then sell them. Kind of like when BCH forked, you could have immediately sold them for like $200-400 in July/August '17, but price went up to like $2000-2700 in November/December '17. If you're going to profit off Knotzis, profit the most you can right?

If there is one thing I learned from the earlier fork-off event, it is this: “A pint of blood costs more than a gallon of satoshi.” Fork-off, do your thing but these infightings are costing us munney. The bottom line is, I hope knots’ bottom line gets impacted pretty brutally on the markets. I also must add: “Historically, historical changes have come out of fork-offs.”

I will convert them to BTC instead of selling for dollars. Bhc ratio was 1/10 when it forked. They were able to push it to almost 0.5 btc for a brief time, but lost value quickly after that

So replying to DaveF here so he can't delete my posts for retarded reasons. My point is that LibreRelay does preferential peering. Do you take that to mean LibreRelay is trying to hard fork Bitcoin? My point is that Knots was doing preferential peering ever since Knots was created over 12 years ago. Do you take that to mean that Knots was trying to hark fork 12 years ago when Segwit and B-cash didn't even exist yet? The point is that there is code out there for core nodes to run so they can ban Knots nodes from their peers. Not just preferencial peering, but an outright black list. But it's only when BIP110 does prrferencial peering that you suddenly declare that the only reason to do this is to hard fork? Is it even remotely possible that there could be other reasons to do preferential peering? Or are you going to stick to that stupid secret hard fork BIP110 conspiracy theory? Yes, that's what preferencial peering is. Similar to what LibreRelay is doing. Do you think Peter Toad and LibreRelay are trying to hard fork the spam miners away from the rest of us? Or could there be other reasons to do preferential peering? [,quote] What you linked to is some code that is not in core or any other distribution that I am aware of that people have to manually download and put into a config file. [/quote] Even if I knew how, I ain't fucking telling you how to install and run it. And besides, it no longer works anyways. So you claim that there are valid non-hard fork reasons for an outright ban of a specific client. But no valid  reasons other than hard fork, for preferential peering. And only when BIP110 is concerned but not when LibreRelay. What you are saying is that LibreRelay has legit reasons to do preferential peering. Core nodes have legit reasons to outright ban Knots nodes. And Knots had legit reasons to do preferential peering, but those legit reasons suddenly became nefarious last year? Your conspiracy theories are retarded. You should focus on Big Foot and space lizzards. Futhermore, here's something interesting: Knots filters out spam. Knots doesn't filter out legit monetary transactions. So if you get around Knots filters and block Knots from connecting with you, you are basically facilitating spam. If you oppose Knots, you fight for spam. And you will be tarred, fetgered, and ran out of town. Sooner or later. Furthermore, Knots uses a 2nd mempool. Something coretards are too retarded to know about. When my node filters out a jpeg, it goes into the 2nd mempool. It doesn't get relayed to others, but it doesn't get deleted either. So that I don't have to download and verify the same transaction twice if it gets into a block. Core is stoopit. Core deletes what they already downloaded and filtered out, so that can download it again later on if it gets in a block. And to solve core's horrible inneficient and wasteful design, some people decide to block Knots from connecting with their nodes? How fucking stupid is that? But I tell you what. Don't ask core to get a 2nd mempool like Knots does. Just ask them to make software that doesn't delete your keys and steals your coin. Okay?

I should be able to spend between my two Addresses back and forth until all my Bitcoin is spent on Fees.  That may take a couple hundred or maybe even thousand Transactions at the lowest Fee rate and I should be able to do that even if your empty drooling brains end up thinking that should be flagged as spam and restricted or prevented too later on. Anyway.  Did you get your bucket ready for the tears yet?

Which means I and others have no reason to connect to your node. If your node does not send the full mempool that it has, all it is trying to do is make my node have to work a bit harder and get more TXs from other nodes to validate a block. -Dave

Your nodevworks harder because it's poorly designed. Your node has to download some transactions once, verify them, dump them, download them again, and verify them again. Which is a horrible, wasteful, and inneficient design. But most importantly, which txs exactly are you having to download and verify twice? They are all spam. So your node effectively needs to ban other nodes in order to be more effective at relaying and facilitating spam. Furthermore, your excuse to ban Knots nodes makes absolutely no sense. Even if 90% of the nodes you are connected to are Knots nodes, the other 10% you are connected to will relay all the spam you want to receive and relay to others. You don't need to ban all Knots nodes from your list of peers in order to receive and relay all the spam you want to relay. You are a shitcoiner, you are making excuses as to how relaying spam is beneficial to your node, and how banning those who filter spam is technically a good idea for claims of efficiency.

Re posting here instead of on the Topic DaveF initiated out of respect of not steering away from a more technical or programming discussion, ----- The person supporting re defining and splitting transactions in 'financial' and 'non financial' accusing original Bitcoin supporters of re defining Bitcoin by supporting original values of Bitcoin is the lowest intelligence points argument I could have read so far out of your greasy fingers.  Do you write any diarrhea your brain produces or can you please think before posting again? Are you mentally challenged or how can you ask if there are 'any other scenarios' where deleting Private Keys can cause you to lose your Bitcoin?  One scenario is not enough for you?  The scenario is too complicated for your brain so your diarrhea spaghetti thinks it is definitely impossible that anyone has any significant amount of Bitcoin set up that way? I saw people talking about time locking their Bitcoin many times around Bitcoin Talk.  I have seen discussions about more complicated set ups even for particularly reasons gmaxwell described, such as securing their Bitcoin in multi sigs for any emergency or disastrous situation or simply for future heirs.  I do not have any idea if any of them was kidnapped, lost their Private Keys or deleted them and I do not CARE.  The situation exists, I saw discussions around the subject at least a couple tens of times since I started lurking around Bitcoin Talk and it is enough to know that they will be affected. What other scenario do you need?   Stick that long quote from gmaxwell all around your house and try to finally understand it.  You should immediately know what quote I am talking about as you put it in almost every Topic you initiated.  I have no other better solutions for you at this point.  I can not remember a single change Bitcoin had that had any victims because of it.  Yours will.  To me that closes the subject. You tried to counter the argument made by Greg like a stick trying to counter a boulder by writing this, Pretty much trying to advertise BIP110 like any other Shit Coin that needs migrations and sticking your face to a screen all the time to not miss the next migration, airdrop and all the other B S that keeps you awake at night over nothing really.  This is not what I was signing up for when I purchased Bitcoin.  It was particularly that it was a SAFE place where I could keep my worth and leave it there not having to worry about it. You are telling me that if anyone with limited access to Internet and there fore restricted knowledge about new things Bitcoin related has no idea about BIP110 by the time the rules become permanent and they are setting up a complicated multisig as described by Greg, they deserve losing their worth because you want to wear the social warrior cape of 'No Spam' deciding who should be able to spend, who should not and now even who should in the future deserve to lose their Bitcoin because they were not aware of your 'new rules'. Fuck you. Anyway.  You asked Greg to shut up over a month ago so decide.  Do you want him to 'shut the fuck up' or do you want him to talk?  Or.  Do you want him to talk only when you can twist words and nit pick what he says? Now shut the fuck up and stop bitching, I guess.

I'm not the only one to make a distinction between monetary transactions and malware transactions. When Satoshi was faced with the idea of Lady Gaga videos on chain, he had this to say: Please do note that Satoshi had absolute no qualms about distinguishing a monetary transactions from malware that don't belong on the Bitcoin chain. At the time, nobody was dumb enough to ask if the sender of the Lady Gaga video would pay his miner fee, or if it was a consensus valid transaction. Everyone recognized it would be malware that doesn't belong on Bitcoin. Wrong answer. The right answer is that in every other scenario since Bitcoin was created in 2009, if you delete your private keys, you lose your coin. This is what started the phrase "Not your keys, not your coin". But in this particular case, coretard Maxwell tries to claim that if you delete your private keys and lose your coin, it will be BIP110's fault. Please point me to one of those discussions where the person was planning on time locking their coin while deleting their private keys. Or point me to a tutorial that shows you how to timelock your coin, and delete your keys as part of a proper way to secure your coin. Preferably something that was posted before BIP110 was announced. I don't care either. Of you delete your private keys, you.will lose your coin. Not your keys, not your coin... If you saw it 10 times, surely you will be able to point me to a single instance of it. "Trust me bro, it gets done all the time" - Coretard I need you to find me a single tutorial or even a post on this forum, that would result in a time locked tx with op_if in Taproot, with a depth of 7 leaves or more, where someone suggests to delete your private keys as an acceptable method of securing your coin. You won't find any. Because only malware attackers need a depth of 7 leaves or more with op_if in Taproot. At the very least, it would be incredibly stupid, and a good way of being very unprivate and revealing all your data to the world. Malware attackers love that because exposing their data to the world on chain is exactly what the want to do. Not so much if you are a monetary user. NO! LOL It's very fitting that a coretard who defends core 30 would have a shitcoin ticker in his messages.