Nostr Web Client

nostr:nevent1qqsp7kravf45xpz3kz75eajw56vv7mrndxgfazzcavm8qucu6j4rpdcpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wc8rcspj

Meister Eder 4mo ago

Privacy definitely. Censoring transactions no.

Cyph3rp9nk 4mo ago 💬 1

Protecting the chain from spam is not censorship. If you think so, you are falling for the narrative of the shitcoiners.

Core developers want Bitcoin to be the new Ethereum.

On the other hand, the two issues are linked, as core developers are more concerned with on-chain drawings than privacy.

What is spam? Who decides? If some cock wants to pay a miner a million sat fee to put a jpeg on the block chain, is that spam? It's subjective. Personally I don't want that but who am I to stop a miner making money. The protocol still works. Unfortunately if people don't use Bitcoin the mempool is going to be empty anyway

i'm so tired of the same arguments from both sides.

filtering spam is perfectly fine unless it has net negative effects. and in this case it has. it's also true that spam is completely subjective, yet somehow we "all" recognize it when we see it.

we had a window of opportunity very early on into the ordinals/inscription craze to act decisively. not with policy but with a consensus change. that's long gone, it only lasted for a few weeks. the entire world learned that core is impotent and maxis are impotent when it comes to fighting parasitic affinity scam shitcoin protocols.

What’s the net negative from filtering?

direct submission / centralized mempool alternative schemes gaining traction. i told people what i think about this when the noise was about baremultisig.

tldr if you disable spam vectors in consensus that is perfectly incentive compatible, and has no negative effects on miner decentralization. it just going to cause disproportionate collateral damage to bitcoin's utility as programmable money compared to how much it would hinder scammers.

in some cases it's perfectly fine, in others it's foolish.

That’s not a result of filtering. If it was, it would mean that filters work as intended, and that’s a tough pill to swallow for the other side. The real reason is mining centralisation which is by no stretch of the imagination the fault of filters, and node runners shouldn’t be punished for it by twisting their arm when deciding on their relay policy.

boring ass pedantic arguments don't change the fact that doing anything that incentivizes direct submission is a horrible idea and will harm bitcoin. you simply do not do that as a responsible developer.

A distorted system *itself* creates incentives for rational actors to destroy long-term value. You either try to fix the system to prevent such behaviour, or see it crumble under its own weight. The only question is when, not if. I think we have enough evidence for such systems in the real world to know that I’m not wrong.

to fix the incentive misalignment you need to make spam consensus invalid. then there is no problem.

one example is baremultisig which nobody uses for non-spam purposes. so making creating new such outputs (not spending them) invalid by consensus would be perfectly fine.

To fix the incentive misalignment you need to reduce mining centralisation.

Your nuclear solution will probably work once until a new data scheme finds a way around your change, if not earlier, provided that you need at least 6 months of preparation and farming consensus for the activation.

it's no coincidence that we are where we are.

McCoy 4mo ago

The fee market competion for transaction finality will be the best, most neutral, longterm uncorruptible filter.

Standardness filters set by a group or groups (even honest, well meaning humans) can be influenced/corrupted.

Where is the line? Who decides on the parameters of the filters? Protecting bitcoin by being really really smart about filters is not a neutral sustainable approach.

Non financial uses will be priced out or they will compete - long term - and be able to afford the fees because they provide real sustainable value

The Monkey JPEGers and most (all?) non-money data storage bros will run out of cash. I will out work them and will out bid them in the fee market.

🌍🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

Individual node runners decide on the parameters of the filters. They bear the cost of running and maintaining their machines at no compensation, so they should have the final word on what to filter and what to relay. The “fee market competition” is showing that so far spam is outcompeting monetary transactions by overwhelming majority.

McCoy 4mo ago

Individual node runners will seek guidance by those with tech expertise + motivation to set filters.

Should I dial it to 80 bytes or 83? How about 90? IDK *let me ask around*

Point is that this type of *filtering* on a long-time horizon can be corrupted/influenced, especially when compared to the level playing-field offered by a neutral agnostic fee market.

Yes and all of these arguments are still *very* weak justifications for removing the configurability of the filters or blowing them out completely. The “neutral agnostic fee market” only works well in a non-distorted system, that unfortunately has gone off the rails thanks to how centralised mining has become.

TheGrinder 4mo ago

Anything that is not a monetary settlement / transaction.

"Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer cash system" and not "Bitcoin: a digital photo album"

TheGrinder 4mo ago

Also, the blockchain can mine empty blocks, by design. So yeah, counterarguments are based on wanting to earn money on jpgs and co.

Tauri 4mo ago 💬 2

Following your logic up to version 25 of Core, we all did censorship. For nearly 14 years our nodes “censored” the same kind of spam that today is referred as “inscriptions”. Only in 2023 this suddenly became “censorship” when Core devs silently redefined the purpose of the datacareier filter so they don’t have to fix it, and practically erase a new “industry” that was created around an exploit of the code. I suspect at this point they were paid or coerced to do it. The damage that has been done to the protocol as a result is evident from the post here. 98% spam txs vs only 2% monetary txs. They basically turned Bitcoin in a crappier version of Ethereum.

Meister Eder 4mo ago

Lol. And running knots changes what?

It brings us back to the roots of being a monetary network, not a shitcoin casino.

moonsettler 4mo ago 💬 1

most definitely not.

If you say so

the only thing that could bring us back to the ideological "roots" if somehow we got rid of all the luddites and custody apologists. most of whom are big fans of knots.

> all the luddites and custody apologists. most of whom are big fans of knots.

Not my experience.

maybe you should poll your knots friends on any scalability related soft fork proposal and check the results.

Tauri 4mo ago 💬 1

Reducing spam on chain is one way to scale bitcoin and the pictures above show that pretty well.

Meister Eder 4mo ago

This wouldn't be a problem if all those knots retards would just use bitcoin as p2p electronic cash and start transacting and stop ideology larping.

I’m a knots retard and I use Bitcoin as p2p electronic cash. 🤷‍♂️

This wouldn't be a problem if all those core dev retards would just fix the filters and stop sucking to miners and vc capital. Here, I fixed it for ya.

Kayne 4mo ago

These core trolls.

So easy to spot.

"I don't like knots (no reason given)

You should run core instead of knots"

Like shit couldn't make yourselves anymore obvious

you know nothing. i have zero love for core.

it's just knots as a social movement is an even greater cancer than core was.

goatmeal 4mo ago

the filter was always wrong in the first place. it was always able to be bypassed. every consensus valid transaction should get confirmed. if you hate inscriptions so much, make them invalid in consensus.

nostr:nevent1qqsv36zqthpjqnpyqm0er5ksmhjtflaxg6cmdczvwzgrsgygq5p0spgt8j2sr

Daire 4mo ago

I’m a bit lost in the debate

Even if knots can filter, can people not go directly to the miners to get what they want anyways

Also what is the end goal of knots? Does it matter if more people run it once someone is running core?

And how is the running of a different node different from a soft fork?

Thanks

It should be noted that spam could only be filtered if everyone enforced the anti-spam rules, including miners.

Knots is a wake-up call to Core developers, nothing more than that, a form of protest.

Daire 4mo ago

I see

That’s why people choose to not mine in pools that process spam and stuff like that

Also using public shaming as a way to get people using bitcoin exactly as money, as I would agree it should be

bitcoinpoorguy 比特幣傢伙 🇭🇰 4mo ago

Bitcoin is to fix the money fix the world

We can’t risk any culture deterioration not seeing it as money.

We may only have this one shot to defeat Fiat and save the world.

"And how is the running of a different node different from a soft fork?"

forks have a possibility of an unintended chain split or can be used to force a chain split.

different client implementations with the same consensus rules will converge to the same chain tip.

btw you can safely run a hard fork of bitcoin. you would most likely be in consensus with the rest of the network, despite the popular retardation about "hard forks" the conditions under they can temporarily be abused are super expensive and hard to coordinate.

Yet with knots you can't run a dojo or use #Ashigaru, the best privacy focused wallet. Or BIP47 a static, private payment option.

Better, since as I demonstrated, Whirpool was completely buggy, and Ashigaru also has serious privacy issues.

Well we will have to agree to disagree. If you only use BIP 47 then you're privacy is increased massively. Knots sounds, on the surface, like a good ideavbut in reality is a tool for censorship. Which in reality is easily bypassed. Miners will do anything for money and as it is the miners that discover the blocks, all knots will do is produce broken nodes. What percentage are they at now, 15%? If the miners don't run it, its dead in the water and I'm not going to slag of it's designer, who "lost" all his btc to a hacker and asked the world how????

Let's see, up until version 25 of Core, the filters worked fine, version 25 broke them, and going back to version 24 is censorship?

That argument doesn't hold water. Before version 25, we all agreed on what spam was.

nostr:nevent1qqsvezad32hfz2jevscmd0kq2m82lledk76rv5t6g0f7pvsqzkauzegpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtn90p5hgtnsw43z7a558px

Knots is simply a form of protest and a wake-up call to core developers.

BitcoinIsFuture 4mo ago

pedro 4mo ago

what privacy issues does ashigaru have?

I’ve heard Luke say that dojo is poorly designed. Could be re-worked to be able to fit inside the datacareiersize limit. He even said he could do this for them, but since all they did was to attack and insult him, he didn’t want to do it. Can’t blame him.

This from the man who got hacked. Even if that was opsec, he is hardly someone to follow. I believe in a lot of what is being said here but too many are blindly following an idiot. Has the core team overstepped their remit? Possibly. Has the knots team fixed a perceived problem? Definitely knot! As stated earlier, it is miners that decide, not nodes. If 85% of nodes ran knots, then you may have a say, until then knots is just going to create problems.

That “idiot” gave you Lightning and practically won us the Blocksize war. He could be weird, but he’s not an idiot. He got hacked because to some extent he’s suffering from the same issue other devs do: engineering syndrome. He got overconfident about his opsec/skills and got rekt. Core devs are evidently going down the same road today: introducing “fixes” without any regard for second and third order effects. They’ll end up rekt someday in a similar fashion. The question is will they drag us along with them.

The history of Bitcoin is littered with people that lost their way.

Indeed and the minute I see Luke losing his way, I’ll walk over him.

Too late