if core ships an update i do not like then i will refuse to update my nodes
if the trend continues then i will support an alternative implementation
everything else is noise
Discussion
🎯
Bien, sabia decisión
It’s not noise. Thousands will update without a clue it’s happening.
Yeah. Most set-and-forget nodes like Umbrel don't even let you decide. I'm glad Start9 has Knots available.
True 🎯
i do not think umbrel has auto updates enabled?
start9 definitely does not and also makes it easy to run knots instead
this change is not that significant, it is more how it is being handled that is disappointing, weird hill for core maintainers to die on
anyway I do not think there are many node runners out there that are not paying attention to this, especially those that run nodes of significant economic value
lets be honest, more people watch mstr podcasts than run nodes
They don’t auto update but there’s literally a button to update all and it’s nice and blue and convenient. Guarantee no one reads “more” details
fair enough, thats disappointing
I mean, it’s well designed software with good intentions. But, when things are convenient people will just click update. This is why I don’t think “do what you will but I won’t update” is necessary the best approach. Yes, we can choose not to update, but for every one of us there will be 50 clicking “update all”
Remember those people you are talking about already care enough to run a node. Give them a bit more credit.
This is where Umbrel and Start9 can add UX to updates of significance to users.
That said, node runners aren’t exactly mindless update sheep.
ALSO: A bunch of set and forget node runners are on older releases.
I read it and choose whether or not to update. Umbrel also has knots. Umbrel is fine.
this is true. we should spread the awareness though. moving to knots would be a simple but wise move
🎯
but if core does some security update or other kind of core improvement, you either stay frozen in that version or you have to update and take it all because its not a plugin based. we need a plugin kind of node implementation.
"The only hope that remains: It actually doesn't get implemented at the last minute; or people reject Bitcoin Core immediately and switch to something like Bitcoin Knots or some code that rejects this obvious madness as soon as it's implemented. Otherwise, Bitcoin is dead. That's no exaggeration."
Jason Hughes, Bitcoin Developer
Bitcoin must remain what Satoshi Nakamoto invented it for!
- decentralised
- free
- electronic p2p Cash
Onchain = Store of Value
LN etc. = Daily Wallet
And ...
that's it 🫳🎤
i think this is an exaggeration
this change is not a consensus change, shitcoiners can and do already get these transactions in blocks
it is disappointing how it is being handled by core maintainers but all things considered a cheap wake up call highlighting issues with leadership
I largely agree. But, the "alienation" that is insidiously associated with these things does worry me a little.
Is an update that supports bloating the blockchain and making it harder and more expensive for everyone to run nodes and update that you don’t like?
Care to elaborate? Because that's not what's happening.
Mate, I don’t want jpegs and shitcoin behaviour on MY node. Core should be doing everything they can to prevent this behaviour. There might be a day where it’s not be possible for plebs like me to run a node because it’s too expensive. I don’t know what your take is but I’m open to hearing counter arguments, other than censorship.
Might actually revert a version or two, who knows.
Being new to all this, there are coders that can alter what Bitcoin is?
How do they have access?
Where can I read up on this?
Check out this podcast about the BIP process with nostr:nprofile1qqsgdp0taan9xwxadyc79nxl8svanu895yr8eyv0ytnss8p9tru047qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3samnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwdc8ymmkdahhxapwdekqzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqm9jn0c and nostr:nprofile1qqsw34nugddy5kfsfc2pg2qwj5h0u9a7gf20egnez6lk870h8e22hfqpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0u098e5
How would you handle a vulnerability disclosure on the version you are running if the new versions contains updates you don’t like?
i think this is a good wake up call to people that we should have well maintained alternative implementations
people that are willing to do that work should apply to opensats
I completely agree.
The libbitcoinkernel project is also an interesting initiative from Core.
Absolutely. Balancing development and ossification. https://primal.net/Dug/Ossification-and-Bitcoin-Development-7jytqc
Libbitcoin has been doing some fantastic work over the years. You should invite Eric Voskuil on citadel dispatch
How does one refuse an update on a umbrel node
I'm not sure but I'd be reluctant to try it because Umbrel breaks too easily & you are likely to end up with a broken node. As Matt says, this is all noise so I wouldn't be too concerned about what's going on
Eventually you’ll *have* to update right? Say 29.1 includes things you don’t like, so you don’t update. But then 29.2 includes serious bug fixes that you really need. I guess that’s where alternatives come in.
Exactly 🎯
So moonsettler has told me when asked about deprecated verisons. That you can run your preferred version behind an " updated" one in order to mitgate this from being an issue.
nostr:nprofile1qqsg8welvf6yq0xpvlqfurwawkzhhye4zzjees6969kk0eh6u0u8p4cpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx27qzg2q do i have this correct?
Correct, run a patched node in front of your preferred version to mitigate any remote vulnerabilities.
Also a great way to quickly identify if consensus changes result in a chain split.
You will eventually be forced to update. Releases that are more than 2 years old are likely to contain unpatched vulnerabilities. There should be more discussion on this.
There is an unpatched vulnerability in the previous 3 versions.
nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpspremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3wamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwe6kcur9d5hxxmmd9uq8mwnx All that work and you go and shoot yourselff in the foot. Banning people is a huge coward move and in the end you loose all credibility
You sound confused. I'm not a Bitcoin Core moderator.
This is the way
🎯
Yes, good for something like this to bring grater understanding about how the network works and what power the nodes have
Sir you are the noise
Do you run a bitcoin node? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is no, it’s a good time to start.
nevent1qqszf05x87fq6l5gcttjscj2w7pw0sacn68qjw9n4gey0j8mx5486acpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg0nla9x
Still healthy in my opinion to make some noise when we see bullshit
yes, open discussion is important
Knots gang in the building
The trend is continuing since February 2023. Where have you been?
I'm sorry, but your team funds OpenSats and Ten31; you cannot just be an NPC on this.
I've noticed that many core developers have their own Bitcoin products, giving them a vested financial interest in enabling certain features. How do you manage conflicts of interest when making decisions to support developers?
personal responsibility is not npc behavior
ten31 has not and will never invest in any company that requires a change to bitcoin
This is an uncommon MO for noderunners. Staying humble here can't be the only strategy to avoid serious problems down the line.
This. Simple.
there is no spam and no demand for spam. the noise is pointless
I would like something that only has security/compatibility updates. Everything else is noise.
Love it.
🧡👊🏻🍻
Problem is you need security updates in the future
I always "assumed" BTC and BCH would eventually complement each other. Maybe I was just being naïve!
There's no need to mess with Bitcoin Core, if the desired feature or tweak can be readily provided by BCH ... which has certainly been holding its own in recent years ... while offering a legitimate and "smooth-runnins" dig. currency for Retail Sales.
Trouble makers are too often (as we know) driven by vanity. So this new issue (i.e., the OP_RETURN proposal) with Core is either technically valid, or it is not. A question that can surely be resolved by well-managed meetings, conferences, and platforms like Nostr.?
The passing by North Carolina's House (of Reps) Bitcoin Investment Bill has just rubber stamped the entry of Bitcoin into mainstream accounting. And well over half of all BTC mining is now firmly on American soil. So what's to complain about??
Apart from improvements to Lightning (and maybe Liquid) we don't need Core to be tweaked just so it can be used to more efficiently purchase cups of Coffee. That's what BCH is perfectly suited for.
Bitcoin's next target in the pecking order is Apple Inc. Once that valuation is surpassed, then Bitcoin's next Market Cap target will be the big one ... Gold Bullion!
So stop the arguing and kindly start reaching out to potential allies in the wider Bitcoin + BTC Derivatives space.
Because if you Core-related Chaps ("Guys" in American parlance) f*ck up anytime between now and mid 2027, then you will almost certainly doom the rest of us to mere existence under CBDC's!
Improve your politics! Control your emotions. Organize your Pow-Wows! Get past this rocky period intact, and singing from the same hymn sheet.
Obviously it has to be like this! 😉💪
As a lowly plebs I'm trying my best to see both sides of this debate over the last few days. This is what I have gathered.
On one side there are genuine attempts to communicate this potential existential threat to Bitcoin with concise and easily digestible explanation for both technical and non-technical plebs. There are sensible questions and discussions in its threads.
On the other side appears to be silence on this issue at first, until the discussions in the community began gathering more attention. Most of the explanations are either very technical and/or conveluded for the average non technical plebs to follow. Or overly simplistic, such as "Filters doesn't work, so we should just remove it". Or "It's not that big of a deal". Or "It's censorship". Sure censorship is a valid point, but even the constitution is not absolute. The threads seem to be full of monkey JPEGs and "bros".
If there are no obvious benefits to this update then why take such an unnecessary risk? We're talking about removing a feature and not adding one. Is Bitcoin broken without removing this?
Why try to avoid scrutiny? Why silence people? Isn't ironic that on one hand they want to eliminate censorship and on the other they're welding it? While us plebs are greatly appreciative of all the work that core has contributed to Bitcoin, but this just seems very suspicious to me. I suspect core or at least some influential members of core are complimised.
If I wanted to attack Bitcoin, this is precisely what I would do. Bitcoin cannot be attacked overtly anymore. It still vulnerable to covert attacks? Does open sats have a protocol to deal with something like this? We haven't won yet, the war has just began.