Satoshi's Secret Cure For Spam?
https://blossom.primal.net/bcb6722bf9af27c846d2ad4c14691eb8cbc1423a93918e47888e86adcb480f4a.mp4
Discussion
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpq2h0sstzrc7acfjk47xgpvx3v2yuhqz0w55ruqv2fxs0jevksnr8q69urpp
#nostr node runners should have all the options .. and no default setting !
Defaults lead to .. walled gardens
Just the way currency should not be pegged to a default asset .. be it #gold or #bitcoin
Why store the actual data on-chain, though? Why ought it not be just a proof of the data, and another distributed storage system (like blossom) does and shares the data?
π―. Bitcoin Core are captured and on the side of spammers
That's ridiculous. Stop listening to people like Matthew who are being hysterical & haven't been around bitclin long enough. He's blowing this way out of proprtion to all his viewers who are mostly newer to bitcoin than he is.
I think Matthew is right, Bitcoin Core Devs have lost their way. They can turn their backs on Node Runners at their own peril. 
That's fine you are free to choose but you should read up on Knots & Luke Dashjr, don't just trust what Matthew is telling you.
That's good advice and I take you up on it. Going by his recent actions, he seems far more trustworthy than Core.
I don't doubt his sincerity but he is blowing this way out of proportion and not doing his viewers favours by encouraging them to go over to Knots without giving them any history on Luke or problems with Knots. It's also extremely bad form to encourage people to stop donating to OpenSats and HRF (two excellent organizations) as he did earlier this week.
The thing that worries me most is the banning of Mechanic from the forum (that rightly pointed out a conflict of interest).
How do you justify this behaviour from btc core?
I don't agree with it but that's the thing, the way the issue has been handled by Core is worse than the issue itself. However Bitcoin Mechanic was stirring up stuff two years ago and is coming across as a bit of a drama queen. He shouldn't have been banned though.
I agree with you that the way the issue has been managed is worse than the issue itself, that is also my point of focus.
If this is the way devs deal with issues and opposing voices itβs worrying as fuck
I imagine many of the Core developers don't agree with the banning but unless I'm mistaken Knots has just one developer and that's Luke and Luke has very strong (& some extremely odd) opinions. I've had a back & forth with him on Twitter some years ago (not about bitcoin) and he was willing to engage & he didn't get in a huff & block me so that's good but a one man development team might be viewed as an autocracy. π€·ββοΈ
Totally agree that a one-man dev team is an autocracy, and donβt love the idea of it, but core is simply forcing many people to switch to knots.
More than being about knots being better, is about it being less worse than core (which is acting in a horrible way which is obvious to everyone, it is obvious that there is no consensus in this issue so why keep forcing it?). Hopefully theyβll get their shit together
How, as node operators, can we seek to ignore transactions below 10k sats? I'd be intrested in updating my node to run these parameters. Thanks for the info Matt!
Hey, you Bitcoiner. Move your node to Bitcoin Knots and donβt forget to say fuck you to all the spammers and Lopp.
I agree that we should do something about this spam. I will filter out these transactions and I hope the rest of the network does too. Even if everyone filters spam, there are still ways for spammers to get into blocks. They can send their transactions directly to miners. Granted, this is another layer of friction, but itβs not much. Spammers will likely send their transaction to the larger pools for faster confirmation. This hurts small miners as they wouldnβt get the transaction fee and it increases mining centralization.
Iβm all for strongly standing up for the original intent of Bitcoin, but this is a permissionless network. I think we will eventually have to rely on the incentives of the fee market to fix this issue.
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqspu7vanzp4a622qcdlp3cf78yv52yvtjzej50guw8j8v8g3v4v0vchacuu9
Bitcoin is permissionless monetary network.
Not permissionless jpeg, audio or video network.
Then how are people posting jpegs without permission? It might be more difficult with nodes filtering their mempools, but they can still pay miners to put their spam into blocks.
Bitcoin full nodes like Bitcoin Knots are securing the Bitcoin network and miners must comply with the Nodes and provide consensus-compatible blocks. So if majority of Nodes filter out spam, it will be very hard for spammers to turn Bitcoin decentralized freedom Monetary network into a meme shitcoin. "Nodes define what "miner" is." This is explain here:
https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/who-secures-bitcoin-95b19bbcda3c
A balanced explanation about OP_RETURN is here:
And some of the risk of leaving spam unfiltered and unlimited are in the following screenshot:
I hope that would be helpful.
Nodes donβt reject blocks with transactions that have a massive amount of arbitrary data. They are still technically valid. Nodes simply filter these transactions out of their mempools and prevent them from being relayed to other nodes and miners. Spammers can circumvent these filters by submitting their spam directly to miners and paying them a high enough fee. Check Marathonβs Slipstream product.
If nodes really wanted to assert their authority, they would have to start rejecting blocks with too much arbitrary data. This would be extremely difficult as there would be disagreements about what counts as arbitrary data.
As always, your videos make me laugh so much. Cheers! Great work your doing to present so well for us all.
Thanks for another great video on this important issue. Will be very interesting to see how things pan out. Are we witnessing the beginnings of the Spam War?