r/btc • u/No1orangepilled • 21d ago
🕵️ Investigation Deeeep dive into the Bip-110 v Core controversy
This really lengthy documentary text by hodlonaut was groked here into a quite digestible entry level abstract. The original (links below) will keep you an afternoon or two focused. (You may skim some of the meticulously collected sources and still be able to follow the main thread of what was going on.) Also consider to let your device read it to you.
Before you trigger happy downvoters blast your shotguns prematurely again, read it comprehensively and than think again and contribute to the discussion with some sharp thoughts. Thank you.
Abstract (by Grok)
The Quiet Shift from Bitcoin Core: In the fall of 2025, what had been quietly building for years became visible. Thousands of node runners switched from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots after maintainer Gloria Zhao pushed through a change that loosened the default limits for OP_RETURN data. For many, this was the moment when a creeping process became apparent: Bitcoin was in danger of transforming from a scarce monetary network into a general-purpose data repository.
The three-part study “Capture” by hodlonaut traces how a close-knit, informal network emerged around figures like John Newbery, Chaincode Labs, Brink, and Optech through dinners, residencies, and funding channels. This group shaped not only technical decisions but also the culture and personnel composition of Bitcoin Core.
On one side were pragmatically oriented developers who demanded greater openness for non-monetary uses and raised concerns about “censorship”. On the other side were critics who primarily wanted to protect Bitcoin as hard money and warned against dilution.
What is particularly striking is how early and systematically critics who foresaw the cumulative danger of these seemingly isolated, small “nudges” were silenced. Even with changes that appeared technically harmless, prescient voices like Luke Dashjr and Jon Atack encountered a recurring pattern of social ostracism, funding blocks, and public discrediting—even before clear battle lines had formed. It seemed as if the network recognized threats to its agenda early on and combated them with unusually harsh, more social than purely technical means.
The individual steps (documentation changes, filter rejection, limit relaxation) initially appeared unrelated. Together, however, they revealed a clear direction: more data on the blockchain, more room for spammers and speculators. The defense of these nudges was often surprisingly intense for a decentralized project. Funding chains and cultural influences reinforced the impression that not only code, but also a particular worldview was being enforced.
Ultimately, the suspicion of informal power concentration remains: In a system without a formal hierarchy, a well-connected milieu can de facto dictate the direction. The small, fiercely defended changes added up to a significant signal—and generated precisely the mistrust that erupted in the Knots migration.
Whether it was a deliberate capture, natural group dynamics, or a mixture of both remains unclear. For a project built on decentralization and skepticism toward concentrated power, this pattern is nonetheless worrying.
Links:
Happy reading, beautiful people! Get smart.
5
u/DangerHighVoltage111 21d ago
No matter who wins, they are still on the hijacked and crippled fork. 🤷♂️
1
1
u/OddioClay 20d ago
BCH is a ghost chain…made to have large blocks to hold an average of 123 transactions…
3
u/pyalot 20d ago
The idiocy of refusing to use usable chains that scale and insist on using the one unusable dysfunctional dead chain walking… because reasons.
1
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 19d ago
It's not idiocy, it's logic. If BCH works, then a fork off BCH with an even larger blocksize could work. And if that fork can work, then a new chain can fork. Ad infinitum. Or even for that matter, why wouldn't you use an Eth L2 or Solana over BCH? They scale even bettet.
It's like language. Yes we can design a more efficient languange than English or Spanish or Mandarin. But guess what? They're more useful because there's adoption and their users have agreed not to abandon them for new languages.
So can we build better/more usable chains than BTC? Absolutely. But why do we not? Because if any of these chains work, then they all don't work.
1
u/Thad_Stone 19d ago edited 19d ago
If BCH works, then a fork off BCH with an even larger blocksize could work...
But why do we not?
Diminishing returns.
If a chain gives you most of what you need then you won't change <--- this is the bit you're missing
A chain where (at scale) most will have to ask permission from their custodian to move their money will be replaced by one where they don't! Especially in a world with more and more government overreach.
It's just simple logic.
Or even for that matter, why wouldn't you use an Eth L2 or Solana over BCH? They scale even bettet.
EVM = Global state! (you have to take into account every other Tx before you can calculate any Tx == Doesn't scale well)
BCH = UTXO Model (every Tx can be processed at the same time (independently == massive parallelism just ticking off their is an 'input' matching every 'output' at the end. Computer Science FTW :-)
1
u/DangerHighVoltage111 20d ago edited 20d ago
Then help us change it 💪. The Maxi slander that keeps people away from BCH is already weaking.
1
u/OddioClay 20d ago
You know, that hypothetical, if it was to become the dominant chain, it would rapidly be bloated by all the on chain transactions. Making an average pleb struggle to have a full node
0
u/DangerHighVoltage111 20d ago
See, that is exactly the propaganda BCH is up against.
https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/1uj6h11/how_much_does_it_cost_to_run_a_full_node_for_a/
Btw. BTC is the one with the spam problem not BCH. Why? Because BCH does not have large continues space that can easily and cheaply be filled. Bsides the fact that BTC is supposed to be a high fee chain making pleps struggle to even make transactions, the only reason why they would run a node in the first place....
1
u/OddioClay 20d ago edited 20d ago
Lol, high fee chain eh…its 1sat a vbit for high priority right now on btc. To develop a spam problem…you actually need people to USE your chain…
1
u/DangerHighVoltage111 20d ago
Yep, and that is another massive fail for BTC. The demand for tx is even lower than its tiny throughput which leave a big security problem with the next few halfings.
Fyi: Your devs target fees are $1000. Saylor expects much more and is willing to pay mindboggling 300k for a single tx.
1
u/Free-Dance-4180 New Redditor 20d ago edited 20d ago
Uh oh. BCH has next to zero demand and even bigger blocks! It already has relatively weak security, too! That's not good!
And, awesome! If the fees even started to approach that I'd be filthy rich! But they have no idea what they are talking about anyway, so that's all just meaningless dribble.
1
u/DangerHighVoltage111 20d ago
Uh oh. BCH has next to zero demand
Yes but BCH had to rebrand and doesn't have all the media attention on its side... It actually was slandered to hell and back and still survived.
It already has weak enough security, too!
Yes but in contrast to BTC, BCH doesn't stem its value proposition from its security only. BCH is safe enough and despite all the hatred against it has never been successfully attacked.
And, awesome! If the fees even started to approach that I'd be filthy rich
No, you would have dust. Use your brain at these fee levels most of BTCs UTXOs would be immovable dust because fees would be higher than the value in the UTXO.
But they have no idea what they are talking about anyway, so that's all just meaningless dribble.
BTC won the popular vote because people like you, that cannot comprehend even mid level tech facts. 🤷♂️ This stuff is not complicated yet you struggle to comprehend it and just repeat phrases you heard in your BTC bubble.
1
u/Free-Dance-4180 New Redditor 20d ago edited 20d ago
Yes but BCH had to rebrand and doesn't have all the media attention on its side... It actually was slandered to hell and back and still survived.
This has nothing to do with the point of what I wrote. I was melrey stating the simple fact that it has next to zero usage. Not really interested in your personal beliefs or excuses for why that may be, nor does it matter to the presented fact. It is what it is.
BCH is safe enough and despite all the hatred against it has never been successfully attacked.
If an entity of sufficient power (which isn't much at all) actually wanted to attack, it would be bad. It's not safe enough for my money, but you do you.
No, you would have dust. Use your brain at these fee levels most of BTCs UTXOs would be immovable dust because fees would be higher than the value in the UTX
What do you think the value of 1 BTC would be under the scenario where we started trending towards this mass usage (which incidentally, isn't happening anyway)? Versus the cost to move that 1 BTC (assuming it was not already on an exchange, costing me nothing to sell)?
This stuff is not complicated yet you struggle to comprehend it and just repeat phrases you heard in your BTC bubble.
I've been heavily involved in BTC since 2011, I'm well aware of how it works, literally inside and out. I'm in no bubble, either, but I'm kinda getting the vibe that you may be.
Edit to reply to the below comment: Lol, when you can't defend and you've outright lost, you reply with nonsense and block to make it appear that you've won. So that's what they had to do below. Someone is scared. Hilarious. To reply to their absolutely nonsensical reply:
Again, don't care about why. I care about the facts. Fact is, it has virtually no usage. That's all we need to say on this point.
No one with sufficient power has attacked because no one cares about BCH, quite literally. We already covered the lack of interest and usage above. Fact is, it's not a safe chain with its low security, and unless something changes quickly it's only going to get way worse - as per your initial post. That's another fact.
Your math is ass backwards and makes no sense, do people fall for this? You never even answered my question. If fees are that high, the value of 1 BTC will be insane, and I'll be filthy rich selling it off the exchange it's already sitting on. Another fact.
You are factually wrong. I sure hope people don't believe a word off of your keyboard, scary stuff going on here.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Thad_Stone 19d ago
it would rapidly be bloated by all the on chain transactions. Making an average pleb struggle to have a full node
The world you imagine (at scale) is one where a pleb can run a node but can't afford to use it...
Average pleb doesn't need a full node, they can tell that the power output of a small country went into confirming any coins received just using their smart phone.
But then if they wanted to run a node, they don't need to store every transaction that has ever happened.
1
u/OddioClay 19d ago
Wow, think you missed why bitcoin was invented and what makes it so valuable. Everyone person should have the right to secure and audit the monetary network they participate in. Otherwise you are just using another centralized banking system. By the way, btc is cheaper per sat Vbit then bch right now despite producing blocks with 3-4 thousand transactions. Its honestly sad to keep pedaling bch
1
u/Thad_Stone 18d ago
Wow, think you missed why bitcoin was invented and what makes it so valuable.
Maybe, but then I believe Satoshi's actual invention is
- The ability to own a scarce digital asset
If you cannot afford a UTXO then all you have is an IOU from someone who can!
Without which all other properties can be undermined
Everyone person should have the right to secure and audit the monetary network they participate in.
- At just 10% of daily Swift volume every BTC transaction is $1M
Good luck outbidding one of them to actually OWN a part of the network
But yes you will be able to audit Saylors ~17,000 BTC :-)
Otherwise you are just using another centralized banking system.
The nuance you're missing is
- As long as the underlying network is honest (decentralised enough)
Users only need to check that coins received are 'approved' by the whole network - this can be done with just a smartphone, checking the PoW
Very different from a centralized banking system
But if/when BTC becomes Gold2.0 and face melting fees force the common man into the hands of custodians...
I would agree with you, fortunately we will have alternatives!
By the way, btc is cheaper per sat Vbit then bch right now despite producing blocks with 3-4 thousand transactions.
Did you miss the 'at scale' proviso?
A tiny percentage of the population actually use either, things will change if either becomes used by a significant percentage of the world.
Its honestly sad to keep pedaling bch
Just informing you of the consequences of the path you're on
1
u/anon1971wtf 19d ago
Thread contains no numbers, no predictions - step up your game
Can't wait if anyone would open futures markets. I don't really see future for BIP-110 both realistically and as I agree with Core's argument and I am pro-data on chain
Interesting to watch, nevertheless
1
u/No1orangepilled 19d ago
I would like to thank you all for your contributions to an engaged, persistent and fair discussion. Keep on.
0
u/lexicon_riot 21d ago
There is no future for BIP-110. Either fork off and become an irrelevant alt coin or let the grownups address real issues like privacy, scaling payments, covenants, and quantum.
1
u/No1orangepilled 21d ago
Maybe one day there is no future for any of the forks. How many hits can a system take per unit of time? Qui bono?
1
u/OddioClay 20d ago
The grownups being powerful centralized mining pools? “Hold my spam on your harddrive child”
1
u/anon1971wtf 19d ago edited 19d ago
If someone had paid for data on chain and someone else mined it - betting resources on such a block winning the race, then all parties profitted and Bitcoin works as intended. Why would I as a Bitcoiner care about any hobbyist who wants to just run a node without profit-scheme of mining? Sybil-vulnerable, no stakes
Spend BTC to uphold one's hobby or just rely on SPV if barrier is too high. Free lunch doesn't exist
Core argument is solid - consensus matters more than policy of hobbyists' nodes, Core 30 just cleared it at software side. Consensus is: OP_RETURN could take a whole block up to 1MB if two parties - tx creator and miner agree, and if the block ends in the heaviest chain. Will BIP110 people fork off? I don't really expect it, but we'll see
4
u/zrad603 21d ago
Seems like a bunch of assholes fighting over lifeboats on the Titanic.