Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110
(I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives)
The big miners didn't really *reject* BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a "secret hard fork".
Some users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true
BIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation
The Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The "Tolerant Minority" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions
So, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about "game theory", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs
SatsAndSports
npub1zt…wxm56
2026-08-14 07:53:45 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…fqf4
Author Public Key
npub1zthq85gksjsjthv8h6rec2qeqs2mu0emrm9xknkhgw7hfl7csrnq6wxm56Seen on
wss://nostr.landPublished at
2026-08-14 07:53:45 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "54c0d92032de73fddbebedd9929e4a349ffed423cd373f2570369f68c12ba000",
"pubkey": "12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6",
"created_at": 1786694025,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"alt",
"A short note: Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think..."
],
[
"e",
"33099fb3af94de49ac524ae7343f07c4faf7ba7f276c6f95e423e478a6ad9b94",
"wss://nos.lol/",
"root",
"f527cf970ce260e74261214bf612e8f75a59db1835ed7e4053326c3f65e232ee"
],
[
"p",
"f527cf970ce260e74261214bf612e8f75a59db1835ed7e4053326c3f65e232ee",
"wss://noornode.nostr1.com/"
],
[
"client",
"Amethyst"
]
],
"content": "Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110\n\n(I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives)\n\nThe big miners didn't really *reject* BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a \"secret hard fork\".\n\nSome users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true\n\nBIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation\n\nThe Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The \"Tolerant Minority\" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions\n\n\nSo, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about \"game theory\", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs",
"sig": "6cded66828f41f799659f31af6a2b7c970efaf65dd45b885c61d3b06899914f158dec389c87159a7f92578d5e1109f39478a6acf823d03aaf72d5cb7bf723d7f"
}