Nostr Web Client

I don’t follow you completely man:

1) lots of ppl are clearly speaking out in favor of btc being a monetary network, I don’t get why this debate is over for you and btc is now a database?

2) we need to filter stuff out because they compete against monetary transaction (what we want to use btc for, at least from the “monetary maxis” perspective

3) I think nobody disagree that the way it has been merged when there’s clearly lots to discuss about is still going on is the worst of all things here (loss of trust is huge here)

Toad 8mo ago

Let's start from the bottom:

3. Agree.

2. Filtering is not neutral towards the protocol in my opinion. If there is a property for custom data and always has been, it will be used for custom data. That data size scales with transaction fees, which is good. Also the block size limit still makes sure we don't become ETH 2.0. A JPEG will always cost SO MUCH MORE than any transaction, so if normal transactions start to be 5$, which is not unreasonable thanks to lightning, a JPEG would cost hundreds if not thousands of dollar of fees. If a transaction is 10$, that JPEG will be more and more unaffordable.

1. Lots of people have lots of opinions. This debate is not over for me, i simply agree with "Shinobi", that the nodes should stay neutral and that you nurture behavior over economical incentives and NOT over morales.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

1) I guess we disagree on the "nodes should stay neutral" and "nurture behaviour with economic incentives and not morals". I got into btc and run a node because of btc the monetary network/database. I don't understand why we have to facilitate other non-monetary uses and use economic incentives to try and supress them instead of supressing them as much as possible with what we can

2) I don't care if someone wants to put a jpeg every now and then in the btc blockchain, but I think what "knots ppl" are worried about is:

- monetary transactions will become more expensive having to compete with jpeg transactions (it is not certain that being more expensive will fade out jpeg ppl)

- it opens up the possibility for actors with huge capital to spam btc to the point of rendering it non-functional for monetary network purposes (I don't see why we should exposes ourselves to such risk)

- it's already so hard to make ppl understand what btc is, if now they see more jpeg of monkeys in it, it will become even more difficult to make ppl understand this is the greatest way in history to exchange money between ppl

Sorry if I come across as unpleasing man, but we got this thing which is the greatest thing ever discovered and we are "polluting" it with useless shit. I don't agree that btc should be whatever the market decides and if ppl want to use it for jpegs than be it. I'm pretty sure this whole debate is because many ppl (myself included) run nodes (so invest money and effort) because they believe in btc the monetary network. Nodes should decides the fate of btc, not the market demand. We nodes want to see a world where ppl are free to exchange the greatest money ever discovered withouth intermediaries (and all the beautiful consequences that this will have)

Toad 7mo ago

I want to say that I'm not 100% sure that my perceived scenario will 100% be as written, as there might always emerge things that we do not see yet.

1) You also "run" a plug that sits in your wall, that allows for TCP traffic. That traffic does not care if you are watching porn or browsing wikipedia and also, it shouldn't. TCP CAN be used to stream porn, although it was never meant with that goal. Even with unlimited OP_RETURN, the consensus rules stay the same. And AFAIK (I'm not 100% sure): What your node filters does not matter at all, because miners will find a valid block and as long as this does not cause a hardfork, your node is going to accept the found block. Your filter basically is only for you and the users of your node. And for Matthew Kratter, so he can say "8% of nodes are Bitcoin-Knots nodes", which is a meaningless number, as of my current understanding.

2) Yes, monetary transactions will be more expensive IF THE BLOCKS ARE FULL, which is an important note. First thing is, that we want to have full blocks, for keeping the miners around long term and not put them into a stop and go mode. That would be the worst thing that could happen to BTC, because the 10 minute block time would become heavily volatile. Also, monetary transactions will move to a second layers solution, which is already the case now for small payments. Your spam concern is imho correct, I also am a bit afraid of that. Even if economical incentives speak against it, there is actor A which has 9999999x more financial power than actor B which also wants to use the mainlayer once a year. That being said: Spam is already possible and it doesn't seem to happen often. Having a bigger OP_RETURN does not automatically enable spam, it just opens the path to developers for easier NFT access, but it's not like the could not do that stuff already with multiple combined transactions. The block size limit remains, so your node doesn't suddenly have to get bigger SSDs and so, as you should anyways calculate with full blocks when you want to decide on how long long the capacity of your SSD will need to last.

>it's already so hard to make ppl understand what btc is

Nobody understands what bitcoin is. Not you and not me, but we have a vastly deeper understanding of it than the majority of people. But you see on this debate, that even the biggest experts on bitcoin have different approaches. Bitcoin is what democracy decides it to be, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe that YOU got it 100%, then clearly you should work on yourself, before you start on others. I can't count the times where I had an opinion but I wasn't aware of a simple additional fact that made me completely shift my opinion. Some of that stuff is already known but you don't know it yet, some of that stuff will emerge only in the future.

Thanks for writing back man, I appreciate such discussions and I don't claim to be right, I'm just not convinced otherwise yet. :)

FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

First of all thanks for the engagement too man, much appreciated! This is the reason why I'm here: to exchange ideas and think together😄

1) I guess here my concern is that if we let the free market decide, and in the end it decides that btc is a database for whatever rather than for p2p money transaction, I'd be devasteted and lose hope forever in achieving a world of freedom and cooperation. I get that we should achieve this "utopia" organically and withouth restrictions, but maybe I'm too emotionally involved and want to scream "no this is only for monetary transaction and we must protect it at all cost pushing out any other case as much as we can!"

2) here I thinks nobody really knows what the consequences will be. Even core devs used expression like "...with this change "spammers" SHOULD use OP_return instead of other more harmful ways". But what worries me is: why are we concern about the block not being full for miners at this moment in time? the btc reward is more thank enough now, even with an empty block. I think the "too low fees for miners" could be a valid concern in the future but not now. I mean, is any miner going to stop mining NOW or in the next 10 years even if the block are empty? isn't the mining reward enough?

3) On one side I agree, btc is what we organically and democratically decide it to be. On the other side the white paper clearly stastes "a p2p money transfer protocol", and I guess I am a btc maxi who wants to keep btc the way it was originally intended

Toad 7mo ago

1) But such a thing that you desire, can never exists, as long as you have any property that allows for custom data to be attached? IMHO us removing the limit anyways won't do anything and it's worth the risk, BECAUSE we can always come together again and decide that this was a bad idea and we should roll back. It's like when you dig a pond for you to bath in, you also have to live with the birds that will find this pond and drink from it and maybe shit in. It's just something that is there and what is there gets being used. It's the most natural thing. There is no pool/pond in the world, that is only used by humans, even though the sole purpose it was being built, is to bath in it. Other animals and species find other use cases that do not get in the way. Bitcoin knots is - apart from merging what they should not merge just like that - the chemicals you would throw into that pond to keep others from using it. I myself like a natural pond, I don't like pools with chlorine and so and I don't care if a ducks takes a dump into it. This is not my world, it is OUR world and we can and have to live alongside each other. A bird will not come to the pond if a human is in it. The economical incentive is not worth the risk. But if no humans are there, it will take a bath and take a sip.

2) Nothing is forever. Initially, there was no OP_RETURN limit, then it got implemented and now it is being removed again. If we find that this was a bad idea, we aren't fucked, we can just remove that part from the code again.

FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

1) Really like your pond analogy. I'm increasingly changing my mind on this (me wanting to keep the pond clear of every other animal with imposing means, rather than find a system that allows us to coexist together in harmony and preserve the pond beautiful purpose with the right incentive. Long-term is the right approach, the most resilient one). Thanks for the convo man, I'm really re-considering my stance here. Again, I think I got my emotions got the best of me initially and cloud my judgment

2) If we can really just try it and "roll it back withouth consequences" if this creates more harm than good by all means, let's experiment to see what works best. But I guess if this change turns out badly, the only way to really roll it back is through consensus change? Am i right in saying this?

Toad 7mo ago

No worries, I also like the points you make, makes me rethink my opinion as well and also sharpens the image for myself when thinking about it.

2) I think it's not a hardfork, it will be along the lines "we accept the bigger OP_RETURNS until block 888888, but blocks following after that, will be rejected and no longer according to the protocol". This would anyways lead into a hardfork, because this would be an abuse case of the bitcoin chain that we try to fix.

But we must understand that a filter is neither a hardfork nor a fix. A filter simply sais "whoever is using bitcoin knots for his miner, will not be able to find new blocks that contain spam, they will only allow blocks that come from the outside". Running a bitcoin knots node does absolutely nothing, as far as I understand. It's only relevant for miners that are making use of it. If knots would not allow the spam-blocks, it would already have created a hard fork, but Luke Dashjr did not want that (yet... obviously).

FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

ok I see, but what still puzzles me is this:

1) it seems the only way to stop spams is to change what a valid transaction is at the consensus level. This was discussed in the past (2 years ago PR was submitted if I am correct) but it was rejected as "controversial". But the PR that was just pushed now in a hurry (remove filters) is also clearly controversial. So why does it work in one way but not the other? And why have we given up dicussing it at the consensus level?

2) I don't understand why we are so worried about fees for miners, isn't the block reward more than enough for a few years? is any miner going to stop mining because the fees are too low now? Also, I thought the difficulty adjustment was there to self-regulate the mining ecosystem, why are we now intervening to give miners bigger fees?

3) Hypothetically, let's say that with this core 29v it does happens that spam transaction fill blocks and drive up fees, making it harder and more expensive for monmey transactions to get in. At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level? Because from their statements it seems that in this case their stance would be "oh well btc is a database for whatever the market wants it to be, so if it is for jpeg and spamsn then let it be it"

Cheers

Toad 7mo ago

1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.

2) Sure, miners mine because they get a reward, otherwise we would never have the hashpower that we have now. If block subsidy goes away, miners only live off transaction fees and if they are not coming in due to empty blocks, it will make many of them go out of business and in fact be a big attack on bitcoin. The first thing we need to make sure is, that the blocks are "as full as possible". Only this can guarantee infinite success. The rest comes afterwards. If we manage to do this with "real transactions only", then fine. But I have my doubts about that, as the bitcoin main layer is not a payment network, ppl use cheap 2nd layer solutions.

3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?

Nobody knows that. But also, it does not matter what "core" thinks, bitcoin is decentralized. If that happens, I will flip to bitcoin knots and agree that I was wrong. I would also support the hardfork that it would cause. Bitcoiners are mostly sane and intelligent people and VC money does not direct the course of bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already proof of that. I, who am an actual user of if and therefore have the most "say" in this, will not support Bitcoin becoming an ad platform.1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.

3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?

FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

1) I guess ppl who were and are still now against non-monetary uses of bitcoin are simply "monetary maxis" who want btc to function PRIMARILY for monetary purposes (and I am one of those). I don't mind if btc is used for other purposes, but I feel like we first need to establish btc as monetary protocol, and only AFTER this is secured then sure, add other stuff on it as long as they don't interfere with the monetary use cases.

Don't know enough about Taproot to express an opinion here. If you feel like wasting time explaining to me much appreciated, otherwise I'll dig into it!

2) Here I don't agree man. I think the mining fee will be more than enough for the next few decades, it is more than enough giving current and future btc price. Also, the difficulty adjustment is there to balance the mining ecosystem, I think it works great as it is and interfering by "manipulating" miners fee seems unneccessary and mostly a bad direction/priority to take (do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners? is that where our help should be directed?).

Also, nobody likes to see an empty memepool, but filling it with spam just so we can say it's full I don't think is the solution here (again, because tx fees are not what makes miners give up or take mining in the first place)

3) We are on the same page here man, we want the same thing. I don't give a shit about getting rich, this is a matter of contributing to the creation of a free monetary network and all the beautiful consequences that this entails. I hope I'm wrong but I thik we'll have to support the future hard fork sooner than we think, this whole thing smells fishy.....

might be that I am in my own bubble (and I am because I care about btc being money and nothing else) but all the "influencers" I follow are opposed to this change (btc session, the bitcoin way, bitcoin not crypto, Bram, Mattew krater, Jeff Booth). The only influencer I follow which is in favour if this is Lyn Alden, and her rational is what worries me the most as in one of her comment she said "do you think there's more demand for non-monetary uses of btc? then let's allow it"

Toad 7mo ago

2) >do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners

No, we help all miners. Not only the big ones? Also, calling non-monetary transactions "spam" is a bit one sided in my opinion. Sure, you can see it as spam, but why is that spam and all other transactions unrelated to you are not? Both are to no use for you and you still store both on your own node.

3) AFAIK Luke Dashjr is the ONLY contributor to bitcoin knots and he commits without reviews. I didn't fact check this, but that would be an issue towards me. The OP_RETURN unlimited thing is less important than an introduced vulnerability that nobody is aware of.

I know that we both want the same. My concerns are anyways for things far in the future. But imho, we need economical incentives and not morales. That being said, I don't care if this OP_RETURN limits gets increased or not, but I'm still not sure how I think about this "filtering" thing. I think filters are here to stay, but I just don't see how they are effective, if they don't follow economical incentives, because miners will use the software that does. Miners want the max amount of bitcoins possible for the least amount of invested energy. Knots nodes not forwarding these transactions is useless, as the big miners anyways have direct connections with each other.

I prefer following economical incentives, as long as the network remains stable. If we see that we took the wrong path, we should fix it from there. If we see that it works, then we have created the best bitcoin possible.

Toad 7mo ago

Btw look, just 28 hours ago the blocks looked like this. If that happens in the future without block rewards, we will get hashpower volatility: