17000 individual nodes signaled by downloading the nonstandard node, and switching RDTS on. Luke did not give you RDTS on by default, you could download a version without it and even in the one I got I had to configure it explicitly.
17000 vs 6 miners and a dev team with probably a dozen or so key individuals. The small cabal prevailed.
The rest of the nodes were given the chance to mount a rejection version, none did, so they effectively abstained. This is key, because if bip110 would have been rejected by nodes, you would have had a point, but no, miners decided.
Bip110 basically limited op return to 83 bytes, the practical limit before most of bitcoin life. It also forbid op if were it was not expected to be used anyway I'm normal taproot txs, as this was being exploited to fill the chain and the memory. In general it just added strict filed size limits which is, BTW, standard protocol practice anyways. In fact I never understood why op retirn was never limited im size from the very begining.
If you do a IBD now you would notice the impact in 2022.
My agenda is my own. If a new fork is born my proposal would be to have 3 different implementations, in 3 distinct languages, so there is no single point of failure reference implementation anymore, neither at the hands of Luke nor anyone else's. But you would understand this is a long project to push for, even in the age of AI. Rust guys, for instance, seem keen to rewrite everything in Rust... except they seem frightened of bitcoin, for whatever reason.
If Luke shows signs of pushing changes that seem to give him or someone in particular any edge, I would be the first to move to something else.
And yes, Core did change consensus in practical terms. When you have a filter and rule 99% of the nodes, your conventions are like protocol. And the excuses they made up were totally retarded. Guacamole game, etc. Software Engineering is about guacamole game always, on every releasse you do, you know it will be affected by a CVE in a matter of days (specially now with AI), but you stop patching security issues? Nope, you patch faster!
/ Jzpx7Gg
npub1fg…azdmt
2026-08-10 16:59:15 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…yaqu
Author Public Key
npub1fgdc5gw7lfa2nvuqx549j56h9h8qhryjx5hq0djta7aqc5m5mtrslazdmtSeen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2026-08-10 16:59:15 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "433e3182685558d885019b52cf5ab301064d4d0553061dd8a7f94b0dc74211fd",
"pubkey": "4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7",
"created_at": 1786381155,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"f8e6c64342f1e052480630e27e1016dce35fc3a614e60434fef4aa2503328ca9",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"e9e028a7db863f81b40823742512827382464a7b5417e0e69f78665b36e1b7b9"
],
[
"p",
"f8e6c64342f1e052480630e27e1016dce35fc3a614e60434fef4aa2503328ca9"
],
[
"p",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7"
],
[
"e",
"02984cfbf8c3a3ad346c72e590948763e85b7592fd44f5efb643c7287579716c",
"",
"reply",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7"
],
[
"e",
"5fd11985dd6b1b162d51cd17cc85748dde7a1abf5425f3ec95c332dfb271acf1",
"",
"root",
"f8e6c64342f1e052480630e27e1016dce35fc3a614e60434fef4aa2503328ca9"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Android"
]
],
"content": "17000 individual nodes signaled by downloading the nonstandard node, and switching RDTS on. Luke did not give you RDTS on by default, you could download a version without it and even in the one I got I had to configure it explicitly.\n\n17000 vs 6 miners and a dev team with probably a dozen or so key individuals. The small cabal prevailed.\nThe rest of the nodes were given the chance to mount a rejection version, none did, so they effectively abstained. This is key, because if bip110 would have been rejected by nodes, you would have had a point, but no, miners decided.\n\nBip110 basically limited op return to 83 bytes, the practical limit before most of bitcoin life. It also forbid op if were it was not expected to be used anyway I'm normal taproot txs, as this was being exploited to fill the chain and the memory. In general it just added strict filed size limits which is, BTW, standard protocol practice anyways. In fact I never understood why op retirn was never limited im size from the very begining. \n\nIf you do a IBD now you would notice the impact in 2022.\n\nMy agenda is my own. If a new fork is born my proposal would be to have 3 different implementations, in 3 distinct languages, so there is no single point of failure reference implementation anymore, neither at the hands of Luke nor anyone else's. But you would understand this is a long project to push for, even in the age of AI. Rust guys, for instance, seem keen to rewrite everything in Rust... except they seem frightened of bitcoin, for whatever reason.\nIf Luke shows signs of pushing changes that seem to give him or someone in particular any edge, I would be the first to move to something else.\n\nAnd yes, Core did change consensus in practical terms. When you have a filter and rule 99% of the nodes, your conventions are like protocol. And the excuses they made up were totally retarded. Guacamole game, etc. Software Engineering is about guacamole game always, on every releasse you do, you know it will be affected by a CVE in a matter of days (specially now with AI), but you stop patching security issues? Nope, you patch faster!\n\n \n\n",
"sig": "271c1128a76bfe68d94dad40618971c1397bcc372a344f8daca1e709985cf2941c1a920a31feb2eb7cb980833bda190b0f299fe116d3d71b22d34f8f81d03602"
}