Nostr Web Client

use whatever mempool filter you want. your mempool, your rules. it doesn't change anything, it doesn't affect me at all. I couldn't care less.

the only thing that's concerning is that the artificial larp instigated by podcasters and marketing people without any technical background or competence divides our community.

this isn't a problem yet, but it will become one when bitcoin is attacked by serious adversaries that threaten to fork it. NFTs are not serious adversaries. they are not even in the room with us right now. we've seen this play out before in 2017 and it will happen again.

it's a classic divide and conquer. we are currently divided. conquer is next. strap on. there's only one bitcoin.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

old old 4mo ago

Couldn’t agree more

ariondir 4mo ago

What’s this in reference to? 🤔

Anita 4mo ago 💬 1

The problem will increase with adoption. More people are coming in with less deep understanding of Bitcoin. It’s definitely a danger.

Andromeda 4mo ago

I remember you complaining about high tx fees driven by spam not too long ago and now you're saying Bitcoiners who are concerned about Core intending to remove the OP_RETURN limit and allowing even more spam are a threat to Bitcoin?

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

(I'm missing any earlier context between you two)

As a relative noob myself to this discussion (I spent a few years in my hodl-cave ignoring bitcoin), I don't think it automatically follows that "spam is making tx fees too high" means that's it's either necessary or sufficient to do more filtering in the mempool

There are many issues and incentives to consider

Anita 4mo ago

I still feel that non-monetary data shouldn’t be on Bitcoin. But the problem isn’t solved by running knots.

https://youtu.be/toXz0cP5LNI

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

Yes and no. Adding more nodes is - I think - never a bad thing, even if those nodes do stupid things

As long as there's a reasonable number of sensible nodes, they can find each other and keep the network going

(Or maybe I'm oversimplifying and there is a risk?)

the Bridge 4mo ago

What would need to happen for it to become a BIG problem?

GuyFawkes 4mo ago

Then if it fails, and it wasn’t meant to be.

wolfpy 4mo ago

I agree nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9e3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7hpu9kr and yea technical discussions need to be had. But if no party involved in the technical discussion is interested in uniting together then separation is the outcome. And it’s not just in Bitcoin anyone involved in university research knows that Egos are very much at play. I don’t take a side we should both be united but this isnt about podcasters it’s about Egos from both sides.

Leurico8 4mo ago

We need to have the tooling ready to integrate people's lives with bitcoin as money. I am working on something for my family, to manage our savings, our balances, the in and out cashflows in and out of the household. Finding each member of the family where they are and guide them trhough the process. They will learn money, personal finances, time preference, accountability and hands on.

Inspired by what guys like you are vibecoding. Ecash might be an extremelly good fit for it but I havent grap my head around conceptualizing what I need to do and how to best leverage ecash attributes to solve the problems I am addressing here. I am sure it would appeal to many families.

Feel free to check it out. I am trying to integrate to github to open source it. Will get there. I am just not a dev.

Anyway, apprecciate all that you are doing, mate. Keep going.

https://bitfamily.xyz/

wymike 4mo ago

Love this!!

ynniv 4mo ago

The problem isn't that people are running Knots – it's that they're running it for the wrong reasons

Kajoozie Maflingo 4mo ago

When Lopp says "bitcoin shouldn't be ossified" that's a threat of a fork.

When Peter Todd proposes tail emissions, that's a threat of a fork.

Its not the knots people threatening to fork off, it's the core people.

calle 4mo ago

none of those are "core people"

Kajoozie Maflingo 4mo ago

Anti-knots people? Idk

Nice and Kind Vic 4mo ago

Yes. But forks aren't inherently bad.

Bitcoin needs at least 1 hard fork to resolve the timestamp mining bug.

It's also going to need a fork if we need to react to quantum.

And if the Knots people keep up filtering, they are going to excacerbate risks funds loss related to lightning, centralizing mining, and regulatory demands on what's an allowed transaction, because after all, nodes can filter unapproved ones.

Ideology and principles are important, but Luke DashJr is not the hero. Blindly following this mindset without understanding technical ramifications and game theory is a path to bifurcation and heartache.

GuyFawkes 4mo ago

Then fork it, like BCH, and let the market decide once again.

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

Why are you using the word "threat"? That sort of emotional rhetoric isn't very helpful

Kajoozie Maflingo 4mo ago

Cause hard forks are scary.

IrrelevantBoB 4mo ago

I am not a "bitcoin wizards" puppet

deal with it

SPA (Super Phat Arrow) 4mo ago

It does affect you... unless you block knots nodes as peers. You should block them. They are bad peers.

Centurio 4mo ago

As long as mining pools do not use knots by them self, there is little effect. Knots may not accept "Spam" blocks. On the other side, pools will not switch to knots, as "Spam" means more tx hence more fees.

A problem could be the loss of core nodes and the decentralization. As a node runner I actually do not want all this Spam filling up my disc.