Nostr Web Client

From what I can see, none of the people talking about this understand the decentralization of bitcoin either.

Bitcoin decentralization is directly proportional to the cost of running a node. Cheaper node = more decentralization

Has no one noticed how much more computationally expensive it is to run a node since the spam started?

How many Raspberry nodes have left?

Now imagine if the restriction is removed and we allow spam.

There are people who run a node because we want to verify our transactions without relying on a third party, and we use Bitcoin every day. It is also our bank, which is why we defend it tooth and nail and do not want it to change, because we do not want to risk losing our savings.

Here, most of those in favor of spam don't have "skin in the game."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Satoshihead 3mo ago

“But hard disks are cheaper!”

Cyph3rp9nk 3mo ago

😂🎯

Des Imoto マキシ 3mo ago

I have a feeling it’s an intentional attack vector. Obviously circumstantial, but there seems to be a pattern of the kind of people being pro these changes and pro Core…in the meantime, I’m running Knots.

rfkill 3mo ago

Removing the op return limit is not aimed at allowing spam. It pushes spam into a box where it can be indentified as incidental data rather than potential transaction outputs which bloat the UTXO set. I can understand disagreeing with that approach but it is far from "allowing spam". The actual spammers are an entirely different group unaffiliated with the developers who implemented the change.

Cyph3rp9nk 3mo ago

WOW, lucky you when your node is full of pedophile photos, then we'll talk about what spam is.

rfkill 3mo ago

If it's in the blockchain, you will be hosting it too unless you prune them. Which would be a lot easier if the attacker used OP_RETURN.

Cyph3rp9nk 3mo ago

If you remove the limits, it can host complete images. What you're saying makes no sense. Now, to do that, you have to use additional software.

Good luck with the government. You're doing Bitcoin a disservice.

rfkill 3mo ago

I'm not doing anything personally besides discussing it. The limits really are a joke though and don't actually prevent anything from making it to the blockchain. It just limits what your own node will forward via the P2P network.

Arguably it could force the attackers to spend more money on getting their data in, and hopefully run out sooner (which is the inevitable result of any spam attack on bitcoin).

I have nothing against NOTS and would considering even running it myself. My problem is just the framing that core is somehow intending to "allow spam" and intentioally trying to destroy bitcoin. They aren't, it's just a different cost/benefit analysis.

Greg Tonoski 3mo ago

Your take is a joke. Go, lick Bitcoin™ COREporation's boots. You may find Bitcoin Unlimited interesting too.

Cyph3rp9nk 3mo ago

By the way, Bitcoin was not created for this purpose.

Greg Tonoski 3mo ago

Super important message.

MadMaxi 3mo ago

The era of 1TB SSD Nodes is swiftly coming to an end. Increasing the cost of hardware requirements raises the barrier to entry. We must avoid this trap! #Bitcoin