MARA isn't the hero here, their business model is simply being validated in markets. Private transaction submission APIs should be built into Bitcoin, and not for the purpose of bypassing relay policy. There are legitimate use cases for this.

Nifty Nei was right: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAM1a7P04apCwwmqNp4VLRam5_uk59tVRWv74UVD_g0-DUGNghw@mail.gmail.com/

There are a few things we need to change to comply with the 7 changes in 110:

• SegWit v2 cannot create a new place for annex data
• Instead of using OP_SUCCESS, we overload usage the six OP_CHECKSIG* type opcodes to allow for multiple algorithms (proving that this does not introduce other problems is taking some time)
• Witness bytes for lengthy PQ sigs must be chunked into groups of 256 bytes

It's a challenging problem but not impossible to solve.

I would agree with this.

Satoshi solved a longstanding distributed consensus problem by using markets. Bitcoin is a master class in lateral thinking.

To think Bitcoin is purely technical is to ignore the social and financial components, which are just as crucial to understand.

I agree it would simply be better to give them a better option

We need to finish the 110 compatibility effort, address SegWit spending rule ambiguity, and scrub the BIP of any of Isabel Foxen Duke's "contributions".

Yes, I don't engage on that ML, it is too heavily censored, and it's also a bit of a larp anyway since it was shut down in the past.

That said, none of those replies negate my point.

Oh, I see you were asking him the same question you asked me, just on my AMA.

Maybe he should do his own.

Sure, fair. Wait, you're saying that half the transactions on the network on non-monetary? You might be right but that's also a little depressing to consider.

Primarily through reducing the scriptPubKey length to 34 bytes.

110 isn't the real threat.

Unconstructive bickering and censorship and inaction are the real threats.

I also notice that you didn't answer my question.

That contradicts a lot of changes Satoshi made. SegWit also marks things that were previously valid as invalid. All soft forks technically do in some way. But generally I do agree at a high level we should keep in line with the private property promise:

1/ coin inflation schedule is set in stone;

2/ if you can cryptographically validate a transfer, bitcoin will let you do it, i.e. you can always spend your own money;

3/ if you "locked" a utxo with a certain ruleset in the past, that ruleset will still be active and let you spend in future, i.e. you can't be locked out of your own money.

• Art Waxwing

Why do you keep asking the same question of me but in different places? Are you expecting a different answer?
#1516052

There is.
https://x.com/cryptoquick/status/2068565015574262223?s=20

Not sure I understand this argument. What part of the 110 spec is a "quite likely" threat? Be specific.

I also agree that is unhelpful. That's why I'm building a bridge on that side too. Bitcoin Abzu. It is not as active as I would like but I did meet with Casey and Erin this week and I do think we have a good plan that I'm executing on.

My Carbonado efforts, along with Lord and Sword are also part of that.

See: https://x.com/cryptoquick/status/2070824495636791736?s=20

I answered this question in another thread:
https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-be-enforced-on-bitcoin-by-sept-1-2026-1770282509?ref=577e9139f51bde13&shareOg=ca66c55a-b2a9-480b-ba08-a2adcd1caa0f&shareKind=position

I'm #18 on the Yes side, last I checked.

Will do my part to make that happen to the best of my ability.

I will ask Mechanic to unblock you.

I literally started a group chat on Signal that has all three, and more.

Bitcoin Parley.

I will share this there.

it is fair to perceive it that way.

I'm talking to both sides, trying to do the work to find shared common ground, and build a bridge towards less coercive and hostile rhetoric.

We need to remember our mission: separate money from state.

If we fail to figure out how to work together to make sure that Bitcoin is secure against every threat we can imagine, the possibility of Weimar America looms closer and closer with every single day.

BIP 54 mitigates the threat but does not provide sufficient protection.

It takes 1500s to verify a block down to 5s, which is still 500% worse than what most are used to in IBD so far.

We should be restricting scriptPubKey length. 520b was good, 34b is even better.