They already bypass the mempool with services like slipstream and others. Why make it easier? Idk where you got the 4X higher fee from. It doesn’t follow that it would be more expensive to convince a miner to include a txn off band.
Why make a change that would allow bad actors to litter the blockchain with CSAM in such a fashion that would give governments a legitimate reason to outlaw running a node?
Make it make sense
Who is this serving?
How is this helping the network become more decentralized and widely adopted by people around the world?
“Hey, you should run a full node and be a sovereign individual!”
“Isn’t there easily viewable CSAM on the blockchain?”
“Yeah, but don’t worry about it”
“yeah… I’m good, I don’t need cp on my server”
> They already bypass the mempool with services like slipstream and others.
Exactly.
The OP is simply pointing out that actors who are not concerned with cost (like nation states) but are motivated to destroy bitcoin will go to any length necessary to get their shit into a block, which will be stored on every node that doesn’t prune, Knots, Core, or otherwise.
Exactly, so why make it easier to spam the chain and blow up the datacarrier size? Which of course will lead to contiguous blobs of CSAM stored on the chain.
“Some robbers can pick locks and jump fences, so let’s get read of them”
Why are you okay with this? The reasons given such as better propagation and fee estimation are marginal and not worth the known and unknown risks.
Do you believe it is currently impossible to get an OP_RETURN larger than 80 bytes added to the chain?
If you pay a miner off chain
So, not impossible and actively happening, but you use language as if it is something currently not possible. I would support a change which would make it impossible.
I never said it was impossible. Go neat pick and make assumptions on someone else’s notes
Get out! Ha! You were accusing OP of being okay with something when he never said such a thing. "Why are you okay with this." smh.
I'm just trying to figure out what set of facts you are using. Apparently it's just emotion.
Same change.
Yup, and governments most definitely care about Bitcoin, unlike BSV.
No upstanding person is going to want to hist CSAM.
The attack vector to harm or erode the sovereignty individuals couldn’t be more clear
host*
Sure, governments who want to destroy bitcoin are just standing around frustrated right now, but as soon as this change happens, they will finally be able to do it.
Bitcoin is decentralized so it depends the number the nodes that run the malicious core V30.
We see that many Bitcoin node runners do not agree with it and already run Bitcoin Knots. Others won't upgrade to it and will stay on V29 or V28.
We will see. But essentiall the more nodes filter non-monetary transactions the harder it will be for the spammers to put their spam on-chain.
I am not sure if you are aware of the reasons behind the change but here are some sources.
Also in this video the major shitcoiner says in plain text what are the shitcoiners' appetites towards Bitcoin.
Those are people who tried to attack Bitcoin with their 0 value slavery shitcoins that are now going to 0 against Bitcoin.
Many people lost their money on shitcoins scams and rug pulls created by shitcoiners like Charles Hoskinson.
They, the shitcoin leaders, understood Bitcoin but they are not after a fair decent investment in the Greatest Freedom Money on planet Earth. They are always after scams.
Ok you have to be trolling at this point…
It’s not that governments are sitting around frustrated they can’t “destroy” bitcoin.
It’s that once the chain is littered with 100kb blobs of CSAM they will have a very good reason to make it illegal to run a full node because those who do will be hosting and/or distributing CSAM. It only takes for the DOJ to bring charges against one person and win the trial to disincentivize people from running nodes because it will be illegal and also because it’s gross to host that content.
You really don’t see how this erodes the sovereignty of individuals that will now how to ask permission (use someone else’s node) to transact?
You’re yet to point out how this changes are beneficial and a net positive btw, you keep deflecting non surprisingly.
Also running v29 is not a long term solution
Yet they could do this right now through various other means, and apparently that’s not an issue for you. It’s only if they use this one path through Core v30, that will spell the end of bitcoin. Right?
Wrong.
1. For me personally it is an issue. Core hasn't patched the Ordinals and Runes spam. It can be patched though.
2. What they do is essentially a hack, explained below
Right now, “images” are stored on chain via inscriptions/ordinals. They are only technically limited by the block size limit of 4 mb. So, yes. As you stated in point one, this is already possible.
And I think Luke is stretching quite a bit here, making a distinction without a difference.
Possible WHY? Because Core did not patch them. It can be patched. Do you comprehend?
Ok great. I don’t disagree. But you are only chirping about this now, instead of two years ago when taproot was activated.
If that’s the main issue, why is nobody talking about it and only focusing on this op_return setting being changed?
I was focusing on fiat mining and acumulating Bitcoin.
I think Luke has proposed a solution but it has been rejected.
OP_RETURN is the bigger threat and bigger problem at the moment.
We will focus on the other shit too. Why do you think the shitcoiners are scared?
OP_RETURN spam feels like graffiti on the mona lisa, annoying but fixable. Meanwhile I’m over here painting pixels one sat at a time, keeping art alive on-chain. https://ln.pixel.xx.kg
Here another explanation of the differences.
Of course it’s an issue, but it’s not as big of a problem because non standard transactions don’t propagate as well so you would have to collude with a miner to include such data on the chain.
What we can do is NOT change standardness rules so it’s harder not easier to put this content on the chain.
Your argument is to not only get rid of locks and fences because they don’t work 100% of the time, but to make it easier for future robbers to break into people’s homes.
And you’re yet to articulate why anyone should support this change. It’s quite telling you’re so determined to defend this contentious change without explaining why it’s a net positive.
Your argument rests on it being a legal liability to have CP on your node. Are you saying that SOME cp is OK and defensible but a lot of it is not Ok and indefensible?
Seems to me that it’s black or white. Either you have it on your node or not. And if that’s the case, then bitcoin is vulnerable to just a single instance.
No, I never said that some CSAM is ok, I’m mot sure how anyone could have surmised that from my comments.
Legally speaking it can very much be black and white, which is I and many others are against making it easier for 100kb blobs of CSAM to end up on the chain.
How are you so cavalier about this risk? It’s kind of suspicious tbh. It’s not like you’re making a case for it, you are just against people pointing out how this change can have serious unintended consequences
hey look - i found a picture of you performing the timeless skills logged on your impressive resume:
🖕
https://video.nostr.build/090e22a4d28f27a9bc0eba5526d608ff8bdede234cc82faead214fa757dc1777.mp4
