Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer cash system" and not "Bitcoin: A digital photo album."
Discussion
98% spam INSANE 👀
If accurate then it reminds me of the pre-UASF mempool spam time aka block size war.
I suspect this time can be a different thing..
Its all aligned with, Samurai case, coinjoints denied, most of coins already dirty by the BIS standards..
Do you remeber Blackrock Bitcoin video?
Since first time i saw it, i was amazed by their courage.
Connect the dots..
Nothing happens without reason at their level
I did not see that video. thanks
Back in the days we used to debate how an attack to gain control over BTC would like. It was always clear that taking over the network through mining power is unrealistic and it still is. So the conclusion back then was that the only way to gain control over BTC would be to buy up as much of the circulating supply as possible and then sanction the shit out of non-custodian applications and co.
Fast forward to 2025. We're taking supply out of circulation to stash it in wall street vaults and everyone is like "yay BTC is gonna go to $1M!!!
As you said, everything is linked in one way or another. You just have to make the connections.
and yet knots will relay it regardless even if they had 99.9999% of nodes. I guess if they had that many nodes Luke would start changing consensus to whatever he pleases. great future for Bitcoin!
Probably. Meanwhile we're watching "adoption" through removing supply from circulation to stash it in wall street vaults.
Interesting times. To say the least.
Will it really? I thought that's the entire point...that it shouldn't propagate spam to peers, until the spam gets mined, of course.
> until the spam gets mined of course
Aha! This is the critical point. I don't think we can prevent miners from seeing the spam, but maybe we can discourage mining of those transactions.
People who are against large OP_RETURNs should focus on how to punish the miners that include those transactions. One option is to delay propagation ot those blocks. Delay, not reject, as we don't want to split chains
What do you think? And apologies if you've seen this idea already!
I think that idea was already discussed and debunked as being harmful for small miners by putting them at risk for having their blocks replaced: https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce?permalink_comment_id=5568544#gistcomment-5568544
Doesn't matter to me, I just think the Knots extra config options are useful. They don't break consensus so idk why Core fans care so much about people running Knots or btcd. Maybe I'm too midwit to understand
Thanks for the link. To make sure I understand:
Large pools can kinda give themselves a "head start" when they find a block, as they can immediately start on the subsequent block before the current block has propagated to the other miners
Small pools don't get this advantage, as they are less likely to get mine two blocks in a row.
Small pools are more dependent on fast propagation (for them to see new blocks, *and* for their new blocks to be seen by other miners) than large pools.
All good so far?
Maybe we should increase the block rate from every 10 minutes to every 60 minutes, in order to decrease the impact of propagation delays
yes
nostr:note18hkztahjp3nfle7le06u7wmw9uryyd2quy4m536jtpne7du58kqs9z8gdz
