Nostr Web Client

I think is this:

yes you can already do it and at a discount, but in a way that is a “work-around”, namely in a way that the network is not endorsing and is not intended to be used for. This distinction might not matter from a “technical” point of view, but it matters from a “legal” and mostly a “what is bitcoin for” point of view. Here we are trying to onboard family and friends to bitcoin presenting it as money, which is already hard as fuck, and on top we gotta say “yes the network also allows and now facilitate relay of data that is not monetary, but don’t worry about that it’s mostly money trust me”

The idea of “open to every data and money/data will eventually win” is great and I endorse it, but I think it’s too soon for that and mostly it’s not realistic for the present environment. Can you imagine a normal person (and we need to onboard these kind of people) saying “oh yes freedom all the way, who cares if someone relays illegal data, I’m in it for the monetary network”

Also, while people can already do it, making it easier for them (instead of having to go directly to a miner or making memepool policy harder to really this things) is again removing friction. And this friction matters (please don’t tell me you believe in the “but this contributed to miner centralization narrative).

And after all this, even if this op_return things is technically ok, aren’t you worried from the behaviour that some of the main core devs have been displaying? Because for many of us is not about “I love knots”, it’s about “holy shit there’s something wrong going on with core”

leadbyexample 2mo ago

Your reply is a more elaborated version of "using witness means hacking a tool which has a declared different scope, while OP_RETURN was originally meant for non financial data, so its contents would be considered as intentional file hosting in the first place".

To which I can point out that also OP_FALSE in taproot is reserved for non-financial, non-scripting data, so that is somewhat the same as OP_RETURN in scope, and it's been going on for years already.

Regarding the rest, nothing to object but still doesn't address OP_RETURN in a way that sets it ontologically apart from what has been going on since 2023.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

FernandoTheKoala 2mo ago

In my view what happened in 2023 was a bad move, and this op_return builds on this previous bad move.

Therefore in my view the argument “it does not change anything compared to 2023” is not a good argument

But this point of view can be embraced only for those who agree that changes made in 2023 were a bad move, and here I don’t know where you stand man

leadbyexample 2mo ago

I naturally stand on the side of the reasonable man who hates garbage on the blockchain and also any technical means that will lead to it.

And I still refuse your argument 😁

It's like if a law is passed allowing the government to imprison people for no apparent reason (but we know THAT would never happen for real...) and nobody bats an eye, but when an additional law permits the government to also spit on the face of said unjustly imprisoned individuals, everyone loses their minds.

FernandoTheKoala 2mo ago

On one hand I see what you mean and it makes total sense, on the other it makes also sense to oppose a second step that builts on a previosuly rejected step.

But most of all, if you don't acknoledge that this last change makes things different (namely that it takes away friction and exposes node operator to more legal risks) then our discussion cannot go forward, because these 2 facts is what our disagreement rests on

leadbyexample 2mo ago

you keep throwing in these hypotheticals though, "well but if you think that, then we have no business talking yadda yadda" 🤣

I have stated like 25 times that I despise spam and anything it entails, nor have I ever said that this new low blow to bitcoin is to be ignored.

I am, and rightly so I maintain, showing perplexity at the difference in magnitude between taproot scripts, on one side, allowing for huge bloating and pollution of the blockchain, and OP_RETURN on the other, which is disgusting still, but on a much smaller scale, technically speaking.

FernandoTheKoala 2mo ago

I believe we have difficulties to meet because you look at it 100% from a "technical lense" only (also are you italian? cause we can switch language in that case lol).

This change takes away friction both intellectually (removing friction equal to saying "ok I welcome you rather than tolerate you") and technically (it makes it easier to do; yes it was already possible to do it before, but it makes it easier). And the new technical way exposese to greater legal risk. If you don't take into account anything that is not technical we cannot have a proper discussion

At the end I think we agree actually lol. I don't think this is a real threat, the message I'd like to be passed is that it should not be ignored and it is correct making a fuss over it. Not for the change itlsef, you know why?

Because ultimately I see a massive disproportion in the "problem" this change claims to fix (very hypotetical and never enough agreed on by enough ppl from day1) and the force with which this change has been pushed by some core devs. Something does not add up here, and if this is the way in which changes are made, it is correct to make a fuss over the modality in whihc changes are made (the HOW is more important than the WHAT imo).

leadbyexample 2mo ago

I'd rather use english so that other people can follow and chime in if they want 😉

You know you are the king of caveats, don't you? 😝

You can't not take into account the technical aspect, because bitcoin is first and foremost technology. It would be like discussing about a painter without commenting on his paint strokes.

See I'm not even contesting that there is "too much" ado about OP_RETURN, as probably there is never too much ado when it's about putting garbage in the blockchain.

I am complaining there wasn't more rioting in the streets when people knew what taproot was going to bring on the table.

FernandoTheKoala 2mo ago

dude I'm not saying NOT to take into account tehcnical aspect of course, what I'm saying is that I don't agree to limit the conversation to ONLY technical aspect.

In the end the way you look at this op-return thing (the motivations that have been provided for it and the way the change has been "pushed") seems much more about "let's make more profit from non-monetary data" rather than "it is for the good of the network"

FernandoTheKoala 2mo ago

Also, I think the true nature of this change is becoming more and more obvious, just look at this BIP here. Does it look normal to you that Jameson Loop is dedicating so much time and energy in trying to discredit this BIP? To me is clear as day this change was push for VC to profit more, got nothing to do with improvement to the btc network https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017

leadbyexample 2mo ago

Ah well, if we want to analyze the arguments that the people at core are using to bring forward this change, all hell could just break lose lol

Even trying to call them "arguments" is an offense to logic.

The way Gloria Zhao explained herself on that podcast was cringe, "whateverrrrr".

Trying to comment on the logical debate is like trying to make sense of Santa.

Btw, Santa may be a figment of children's imagination, but it's still much more serious than Lopp.

So yeah, we do not need to bring in the moral/economical/logical side of the debate, because there is no difference between us there.

That's why my original argument has always been technical, I had nothing to add or expand on the rest.