Bitcoin in Bytes #BIP-110 @BitcoinInBytes

Unfortunately, we are being blocked by certain oligarchs in order to maintain their monopolistic chokehold on the Indian people. You can guess who they are … This is a crime against the people of India!

DogeDesigner @cb_doge

2 weeks ago

India needs @Starlink 🇮🇳 • 11,256 of India’s listed villages still lacked 4G coverage as of May 2026. • India had 1.093 billion internet subscriptions in March 2026, but only 440.87 million were rural. Rural subscription density was 48.31 per 100 people, compared with 126.80

3K 1K 7K 57.1M 1K

@llixeey Black ⚫️ , Triangle of A

Bitcoin has withstood the largest, the most expensive attack in the history. The reference implementation is Bitcoin Knots. It's time to update nodes to version 29.4.1 which includes update of proof-of-work algorithm (Blake2b replaced SHA-256d): github.com/bitcoinknots/b…

@SqSehrish R

The more I think about it, the more I think we should claim the name. "Bitcoin" By doing so, yes, it forces confusion... but that's the point. Are we Crypto Anarchists or what? 🤘🤨 IF we get an exchange ticker (I suppose we will need to) then let it be B2B and that will be the only differentiator. Bitcoin (B2B) -VS- Bitcoin (BTC) Let's not turn down the heat and keep bringing the fight to them ✊🤨⚡️ The Miners seized control of Bitcoin (BTC) at the behest of the Core supporters and Core nodes that - by refusing to signal URSF, relinquished their power to the five BIG Mining Pools and in doing so HIJACKED BITCOIN invalidating the "Longest Chain" narrative which only holds true if the Bitcoin Network is operating properly. Proper operation assumes Decentralization and that the Bitcoin Power Structure is intact. They were not. Therefore, longest chain is invalidated as being the true Bitcoin. BTC from now on will stand for "Bitcoin Core," which is more accurate as it is Core's implementation of the Bitcoin protocol - nothing more. Bitcoin (B2B) is the new maintainer of Bitcoin in BOTH name and protocol. ✊🤨⚡️ Who's with me on this?

@Jayatc1 @ecurrencyhodler Back when ASICs were first being announced, we planned to PoW change if it centralised. We should go back to that plan, and repeat as needed

We ran Knots. We pushed BIP-110. We tried everything to keep Bitcoin as money. But the chain we loved is captured. And on September 1st, 2026, we will walk away. This Declaration is our letter to the future. Read it, improve it, it belongs to you. github.com/CuteTeddy/A-De…

@lashley_joseph @saylor Same here bro

@miradreaamy 35

So here's the plan for selecting Bitcoin's new PoW algorithm: Nobody knows the new algorithm right now, and nobody will until we all know at the same moment. At 14:00 UTC August 11th, we will begin watching Bitcoin's Testnet4 chain for new blocks. The very next block found, look at the block hash. The last character will choose the new algorithm. (Note that testnet4 blocks are typically timestamped wrong!) As soon as I see that block, I will reveal the mapping showing which algorithm that character represents. Throughout the last 24+ hours, the community has discussed and made a short list of candidate algorithms. I compiled that list into a weighted (according to their suitability) set of options for the mapping list. You can prove I didn't rig it, by SHA256 hashing the mapping text file. It will match 71a7960874f3352f4ba600ce67bd6f8e96702565abea93021fa86349d99a45e8

@pete_rizzo_ Removing Luke as BIP editor is an absolutely disgraceful move

> But I'm going to have to ask you to paint an actual realistic picture of this and break down the economic incentives for not accepting my transactions. No problem, here goes. There's been chatter for several years among Keynesian/economically illiterate Bitcoin developers (most prominently Peter Todd, Pieter Wuille and Andrew Poelstra) expressing worry about the "security budget", i.e. the ability of the Bitcoin network to pay the miners to keep the network running properly. One of the proposals to address this fake problem is taxing users for keeping their UTXOs in the UTXO set. The idea is that when you create a transaction you have to pay extra sats proportional to the age of the UTXOs that are being removed from the UTXO set by that tx. Bitcoin txs don't have any field for the fees. Fees are simply the difference between the numbers annotated in the UTXOs that the tx destroys and the numbers annotated in the UTXOs that the tx is creating. A taxman mining node would simply introduce a new rule that enforces this logic on unconfirmed txs and discards by consensus those that don't pay this base tax. There's no need to introduce any new address type for this, and there's no way to escape the tax. The longer you postpone spending your UTXOs, the higher the tax will be eventually. The economic incentives for mining nodes to activate this malicious soft-fork are self-evident, more fee income = good. The tool that was commonly understood users could rely on to prevent this sort of thing (User Rejected Soft Fork) was shown the other day to be ineffective. Pools can indeed steamroll and kick large parts of the user base from the network with their >90% of hashrate, and the only recourse for URSF nodes will be to revert their URSF rules and go back to the only chain (the tax chain) or hard fork into a shitcoin without taxes. Any questions?

New POW algo, please. I want to be able to transact without trusting 3rd parties again. This is not about NGU. It's about separating money from state. I personally would love to return to the days when bitcoin could be mined on a home computer. This is our chance for a reboot, Plebs. LFG!

@ts_hodl @dathon_ohm BIP110 has community support. There's just a tiny few bad actors attacking it. PoW change eliminates their threat.

@renepickhardt It is supposed to be a monetary network, not a file hosting network.

Update: it appears that the large mining pools have colluded to turn Bitcoin from money into a toxic data dumping ground by executing a secret hardfork against the Bitcoin node network. The community is working on proposal for a proof-of-work change to fire the miners.

I still have significant hashpower mining on the #BIP110 chain. I still exclusively run #BIP110 nodes. I will never run shitcoin core software again no matter what happens from here. If an inbound transaction to me is only confirmed on corechain, it's not a real transaction, and I will consider it unpaid until it's confirmed on the true monetary #Bitcoin chain. I'll die before I allow my personal infrastructure to become a random data store or relay for these vile creatures

I am a Bitcoiner. The Bitcoin tip has slowed considerably. I will not revert my Bitcoin Improvement Proposal nodes back to Knots or Core. I will treat the Bithereum that I now own as another dumb fiat investment, and I will only transact on a public node with it. If the community puts together a PoW change hardfork for Bitcoin's tip, I will support it and put economic and social energy into it. I am not interested in being a Bithereum head. I am a Bitcoiner.

Looks like we're wildcatting! Those of you in the oil business know exactly what wildcatting means😻 Tick tock, next block⛏️

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next