Or just dont upgrade.
Discussion
Yeah but that doesn’t send a message.
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Don't give up the fight
Nah Knots filters the real problem which is unlimited witness data…
The block has a limit on witness data. 4MB is a real limit. But really, the limit is something like 15 signatures. (Last time I checked) I can see a quorum of 15 people being viable in a coporate setting (and in LiquidBTC).
It would be hashing keys that don't have usable pubkeys that is a real issue ON-CHAIN which has nothing to do with node policy.
The block size being the limit is a really myopic and naive perspective that doesn’t factor in any sort of systems/adversarial thinking. Taproot wizards proved that this was a bug.
However, I agree with you that UTXO bloat is a problem that needs to be solved economically. If we all run knots with full filters then this will become a problem again. A witness limit of 400kb with an OP_RETURN of 4kb I think is a better solution. This solves the real problem for nodes (witness unlimited) and allows the market to show what it might do with a slightly useful OP_RETURN (it would especially be useful for Nostr, which would be complementary to Bitcoin’s monetary use). I will expand on this in a longer form soon if you’re interested…
Yes we need more information, memes, articles and content in general on the subject!
I’m just starting to dig into all this so please don’t roast me. Isn’t trying to use bitcoin for more than its intended p2p transactions the core of this problem? Why do we need to try to put data on the Bitcoin blockchain at all?
No worries. There’s a serious long term problem if there’s no fee market for miners. It’s likely the system becomes unstable if there’s not sustained demand for block space. There’s also the short term issue that if there’s no practical place to put “arbitrary” data, then when block space is cheap the market finds a way to put it in there in ways which suck for everyone- especially node runners (UTXO bloat). The argument, as I understand it, is OP_RETURN is the *least bad* place for this stuff to go if that’s what the market wants.
So while we can all be ideologically aligned on P2P money… the reality (as it currently stands) is it is NOT being used that way. Empty blocks in 2025.
I’m in the camp that we should first and foremost build things that help BTC be used as a money (and more specifically a medium of exchange long term). This is exactly why I am all-in on Nostr marketplaces with https://conduit.market
However, I also understand the technical challenge of that monetary reality short term and long term. So I see a practical compromise thru 4kb of OP_RETURN for Nostr metadata which I believe shares and helps BTC’s ideology without sacrificing the vital role of node runners.
BTW I really appreciate the way you approached that question. Cheers.
Look, I am saying I'm not going to tell someone else what their limit is but if they leave field "unlimited" the real limit is the block size. My filters are on. There's a lot of bitcoiners out here who want to tell others how to use their computers, I'm not one of them.
No one cares if people opt to go unlimited.
The unlimited people are the ones insisting everyone go unlimited and they want remove the option to opt out.
That’s where I have a problem
I DGAF what these queers do with their own nodes but when they start trying to force all node runners to be queer I will not just shut up and stick my head in the sand.
Made me chuckle
Agreed, more options to let people vote with their nodes is better
We can change configs, but it’s not practical to expect most node runners to do this without good ux
they are definitely homo psychopaths, that is for sure
because they got the giant dick of teh ruling class firmly right up their ass up into their diaphragm
I think I misunderstood you then, we’re quite aligned