Your signaling that you are for shitcoins
Discussion
No... I'm not... You just like many others are being so dogmatic you fail to even see my point
Dude I understand your point. You are parroting what the big blockers are saying. I get it that it’s technically better for spam to be stuffed in the OP_RETURN than in the SW. That does not mean that they will stop stuffing shit in SW, they will do both and will still deal with miners directly.
Just because scumbags can go to miners direct doesn’t mean we should remove the ability to set limits. This could be flipped on its head by saying it’s allready possible to set the OP_RETURN to false so we should remove it completely from core. Why? Because people can already do it.
Y’all are the ones downplaying this or not thinking it through all the way.
This doesn't remove the ability to set limits from your mempool. This removes the default setting for CORE. CORE is just a REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION. If this makes it into 30 you know what will still work? 29...
Core is the most widely used node software, why don’t you guys roll back to 2010 when there were no limits. Do you see how stupid that sounds.
You are trying to build a case to remove user settings but it doesn’t make sense anyway you frame it.
How does 100 less lines of code not make sense?
I'm not intentionally parroting anyone. My opinions are my own.
I'm signaling to simplify cores code base to make is more simple, more maintainable and less prone to drama in the future. On top of that, it becomes easier to soft fork to make changes and add whatever filtering you want to your own mempool. My position is not of more utility. Because this doesn't give Bitcoin any more utility than it already has. Your head is so far up your own ass to understand that argument, so you'd rather hurl insults and misrepresent my position.
You are saying I’m up my own ass when I have said I would be cool if Peter Todd’s bitch ass would revise his BIP so that core defaults to what it is now and let users opt in to unlimited OP_RETURN. Ideally if users would be able to set to unlimited they should also be able to set it to false. It’s a one way street with people like you your way or the highway.
By forcing node runners to remove limits you are helping bad actors tarnish Bitcoin.
You know who else is in favor of this?
Vatalik Buterin
Publicly traded miners
Taproot wizards
Venture Capitalists
Shitcoiners
No one is forcing node runners to remove limits though... Node updates are not forced.
I’m done discussing this with you. Your solution is for node runners who don’t agree to stop updating and stick their heads in the sand. You are unwilling to compromise and fail to consider non technical ramifications. If this was 2016 you would be with the big blockers and would’ve ended up with bitcoin trash.
Funny of you to assume I wasn't around in 2016... Changing the block size is a much different issue that has actual technical implications for decentralization. You're free to disagree but this change does not in my opinion.
I think it’s related because if we never changed the block size from 1 meg to 4 we would have full blocks right now and wouldn’t be having this discussion. I believe this is being engineered because the mempool and blocks arent completely full
What's the worst thing that can happen if this passes? There's too much "spam" getting into the chain? Still a 4mb block limit. If people think it's an issue, they can downgrade (likely won't upgrade anyways) or run a soft fork like knots? I'm actually curious. I don't think anything can happen that will irreparably break Bitcoin. But I want to know your thoughts.
It shifts the narrative from electronic peer to peer cash to electronic cash and other stuff. It will lead to a larger blockchain which will result in less node runners and make bitcoin more susceptible to attacks.
Image publicly traded miners and blackrock team up and try to slow throughput on the blockchain. They load up 30,000 transactions to occupy 30,000 blocks (4mb txs) and turn off their hash power. Yes after 2016 blocks / transactions there would be a difficulty adjustment but then they could load up another 30,000 blocks/ transactions. I know what you’re thinking they can do that now. That’s not really true because right now the core node operators don’t pass around and propagate tx over the 80 byte limit so they wouldn’t be able to get all those tx mined they would have to do them 1 by 1 going out of band to these shady miners like marathon and Luxor.
Right now the average txs per block is like 3,000 that could trend way lower with a limitless OP_RETURN.
These people want to force us to pass around dick butts to each other and they don’t want you to opt out because then it’s harder for them to slow down the throughput of the network.
This is just one hypothesis
A bad actor will be able to "spam" attack the network either way. High fees are not detrimental to Bitcoin, only to people who, like Btrashers, believe that on-chain transactions should be viable for micro payments. This is not a feasable position if you accept that a limited supply will lead to price appreciation.
Btw knots is not a soft fork it shares the same consensus rules as core
Sorry, I shouldnt have said your head was up your ass. I'm glad you care as much as you do. I care too.
I’m sorry I told you to 3D print a dildo and to shove it up your ass.
Even though it’s a policy change and not a consensus change I still think a node signaling like what was done in taproot would be the most cordial way to proceed. Make changes in the middle of the night and rejecting node runners opinions creates division and confusion.
Sorry that got heated and you’re right it is because I care. I care too damn much!
Dildo heh