After almost five years without Nick Szabo, we've wrecked Bitcoin. He had to come back to tell us we're idiots.

In short, he told us that:

- We have to end the segwit discount.

- If we allow things in op_return, we will have to be able to remove it from a complete node, which is not possible now, or continue to limit op_return.

If the police catch you with 100 gigabytes of child pornography, you go to jail even if it's encrypted. This is worse; the police don't need to decrypt it, it's visible to everyone with a simple program. Do you expect not to go to jail?

You're stupid. It's a full-blown state attack, as I've been saying for a long time, and you've fallen into the trap.

Bitcoin is not storage, Bitcoin is money. Anything that does not involve monetary transactions should be censored because it is spam.

By the way, knots filter both segwit discounts and op_return and many other types of spam. If 90% of the nodes were knots, we would not have this problem on the table.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Can you explain how knots filters segwit discounts?

If I'm running knots is there a setting to adjust?

You don't have to touch anything, and if you want maximum filtering, simply disable datacarrier.

Thanks! I'll look into the link posted as well. Will be looking to see if removing datacarrier would prohibit any kind of basic single sig or possibly multisig monetary only transaction even if it is Segwit or Taproot.

I'm presently assuming any Segwit transaction is a Segwit discount transaction.

I’ve asked Core apologists what they would consider credible attacks on Bitcoin via Core dev compromise, and no one has given me an answer.

Fast forward 5 years. The core devs were unconvinced that this was an issue or were compromised. Governments begin confiscating nodes and locking up node runners because the ledger is now a cess pool.

We still need what bitcoin was meant to offer. What's is to be done? Does a less valueable hard fork become more valuable than OG bitcoin because bitcoin is unusable / centralized?

Would every node need to switch from core to prevent the ledger from containing illegal data?

Not every node.

At the moment 99.9% of Bitcoin Nodes filter transaction that contain OP_RETURN of biggere than 83 Bytes. (all nodes are good, except the few that belong to Peter Todd Libreralay)

What the Nodes do is they don't relay transaction to other nodes that violate their filter settings (for example when they contain OP_RETRUN with more than 83 Bytes)

If the majority of nodes do not relay those spam transactions (non-monetary transactions) they don't get added into the current blocks that are to be mined from miners.

The really malicious Core V30 will need to get big % of the nodes to be able to be really malicous.

I doubt they will get a lot of traction. We will see. But its important more people run Bitcoin Knots or not upgrade to Core V30

The Knots option is better because it fixes inscription spam as well, which compromised Core devs deliberately left unfixed.

Todd had to turn core into Libre Relay because he couldn't get anyone to run it otherwise.

What is segwit discounts? Does it affect LN? Running core 25 and under is good in that case also, right?

The bug affects all versions, only Knots patched it.

Why the police don't need to decrypt it? How is it visible to everyone with a simple program?

They can decrypt it as it appears elsewhere, then see that your node has the same cyphertext.

Example: Am cop, run "Watch bad movies off the blockchain" app (which decrypts cyphertext and plays the plaintext movie file). Find bad movie, see that it is bad, note the cyphertext. Still am cop, come to your house to look at your node, see cyphertext, confirm that it is identical to "bad move" cyphertext - arrest.

Oh I see just like torrent, by if the node is behind tor without even ipv4 and ipv6 behind tor only .onion and i2p, that's very hard to know where the cop is downloading it from, right?

Something that gets missed in this conversation is the perspective of the miners, especially the big dogs. What regulated miner would risk it all and mine a block with csam? It would probably be a state sponsored miner or someone who staked their reputation/business interest on this issue being a big issue

Miners won't get in trouble for mining a block with CSAM. It's not as if the miners are standing around their rigs masturbating to the blockchain. Even if they WOULD get in trouble, choosing not to mine a particular block wouldn't help, since just by virtue of the fact that they recieve transaction requests means that they will be downloading arbitrary transactions, even if they choose not to add them to their blocks in the end.

The only people who can be hurt by this are the little guys.

here are my 5 cents. first of all, government complience is not goal for bitcoin development. second of all, correct me if i'm wrong, but increased size of op return does not increase total max block size. if aomeone has use for that space and is willing to pay for it, so be it, let's not make good the enemy of the perfect

Your argument is the one Core supports, but the world doesn't work that way.

It's one thing to ignore regulations, but it's quite another to shoot yourself in the foot.

It's like setting up a decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace and knowingly allowing drug trafficking, arms dealing, and murder in full view of everyone.

This issue isn't black and white; it's a matter of strategy.

You get it. You might also be in the process of understanding that the cypherpunks you'd need in this situation long left for other projects.

Some of us saw Adam as that who he is ten years ago. Someone deeply compromised bbyboutside forces. He always has been the perfect target.

People should enjoy NGU while BlackRock allows it.

Cypherpunks don't do things in plain sight because they know the government is waiting for the slightest opportunity to screw them over. This is what the idiots at Core do and allow.

It's very naive behavior, because allowing this shit is unnecessary 🤷‍♂️

look. i see where you are coming from, but from where I am, what this looks like is complacency. bottom line is that as far as international consensus is concerned and as far as the law goes in every single country on earth, monetary self souvernty and capital protection against confiscation by inflation are illegal. it does not really matter, if you somehow make it more "illegal". governments are coming after bitcoin in the same manner as for every other freedom you have. glacially slow and deliberate

I still don't understand your point of view. Why risk Bitcoin for unnecessary things? Are photos of monkeys and possible criminal uses really necessary?

This complacency is a topic you use, but it is you who fall into complacency with your nonsensical arguments.

Tell me why I have to accept that crap on my node? Bitcoin wasn't created for this.

And yes, the filters work with mass adoption like we had before the witness bug, but they've stopped working because Core hasn't fixed it.

"If the police catch you with 100 gigabytes of child pornography, you go to jail even if it's encrypted"

just let me know when we're throwing someone from blackrock in jail

Blackrock can buy their freedom

it will cost political points. don't underestimate that value

We write our own rules, pleb.

discord is money. money runs the world

Bitcoin’s strength is that it forces uncomfortable trade offs into the open rather than hiding them behind gatekeepers. Szabo himself said he’s exploring the issues and hasn’t taken a definitive stance. Neither should we rush to normalize filtering as the answer.

Fee pressure + legal clarity > subjective censorship.

There's no censorship.

You will be able to send value to anyone on the network, at any time, without asking permission. That's the censorship resistance that was promised.

Wizard .jpegs and worse were never part of the equation.

You can’t have permission to send value without permission to use blockspace however the protocol allows. Filtering by content instead of fees is subjective gatekeeping.

Today it’s wizard jpegs. Tomorrow it’s sanctioned addresses or capital controls. Every payment network eventually filters undesirable transactions.

Bitcoin’s promise was pay the fee, get the blockspace. High fees already filter inefficient uses. Adding human judgment breaks the neutrality that makes Bitcoin work. Either blockspace is neutral or it isn’t. There’s no middle ground.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What are you talking about? The filters are already there and have been there for a decade plus. The new Core people are trying to remove the filters. To change the rules of the game.

Bitcoin is a monetary network from inception. The protocol only allows inscriptions because Rodarmor found a way to exploit a bug in Taproot.

In conclusion:

Taproot had years of review. This wasn’t a bug, or it would’ve been fixed immediately. Ordinals pay full fees. The old OP_RETURN limits were for actual spam when blockspace was cheap. Not the same thing.

You want to filter paid transactions because you don’t like the use case. That’s literally the gatekeeping Bitcoin was built to prevent. The fee market already handles this. Your aesthetic preferences don’t.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

People feared to introduce unintended consequences with Taproot and SegWit.

They have been right. But what if those unintended consequences have been intended consequences by Core devs via their backers. The compromise has been going on for far longer than many here might admit.

Most have not even been here in 2014 when Mastercard and a couple of conglomerate Bilderbergers founded Blockstream.

You say that you can't have permission to send value without permission to use blockspace however the protocol allows. Has anyone disagreed with this? It seems to me that people have only been complaining about what blockspace use-cases the protocol allows, not about the fact that the wrong sort of people have permission to send value.

Yes Bitcoin is the best MONEY

In the knots vs core battle, who will win? This with the most mining power.

And are not the big miners backed by the institutes which need government approval?

The war is already over. Bitcoin is Lost. Maybe you can save #monero

Meanwhile Bitcoiners instead of firing up their CPUs to defend the biggest 1 CPU one vote chain they cheer the state actors over cypherpunks defending Monero.

Look at the other comment I got.

I never claimed Monero was perfect. I even alluded to the fact that Monero is in trouble and needs saving. But because I spoke against Bitcoin the person blocked me.

Do you think that people like that have the will and the wisdom to defend liberty?

Monero suffering from block reorganization attacks? You're an idiot 😂

Blocked

If the state were going to co-opt anyone into destroying Bitcoin, then they would find someone who is on the inside, but who really hates Bitcoin.

Can you think of anyone like that?

I am confused. Nick Szabo wrote: “The Core argument I've heard is that one can hide data in other ways that are not pruneable; OP_RETURN data is pruneable. This suggests that allowing more data on OP_RETURN conceivably may reduce legal risks.” But you say he said it is not possible to remove it from a full node. Could you please clarify?

"Anything that does not involve monetary transactions should be censored because it is spam." What are you referring to? It sounds like you are saying money is the only thing that matters to you.

You're a fucking retard, come on to the mute list.