Replying to Avatar Luke Dashjr

The OP_RETURN discussion is not new and dates back to 2014 when Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 was released with the OP_RETURN policy included which was intended to discourage more egregious forms of spam. At that time, 40 bytes was the default max datacarriersize limit across all node implementations; this was and still is sufficiently large for tying data to a transaction (32 bytes for a hash and 8 bytes for a unique identifier). Core subsequently increasing the default to 80 bytes was an entirely voluntary decision and in no way contradicts the design objective that OP_RETURN creates a provably-prunable output to minimise damage caused by data storage schemes, which have always been discouraged as abusive. There are also other good technical reasons which I have chosen to retain the lower default in Bitcoin Knots, and no justification for increasing it.

It is not my intention, nor that of my team at

nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze, to filter coinjoins. These present an innovative tool for increasing Bitcoin’s privacy and, when constructed properly, coinjoins can easily stay within the OP_RETURN limit (indeed, there is no reason for them to have *any* OP_RETURN data at all). I have some ideas on how to alleviate the recent issue where some coinjoin transactions were flagged as spam from Knots v25, and I am willing, with the full resources of my team, to work collaboratively on a solution in good faith.

Bitcoin does and always has allowed nodes to set filters based on multiple sets of criteria and Knots v25’s defaults are IMO what is best for Bitcoin at this time. Others may disagree and that is ok. They are free to (and should) run their own nodes - it is good for Bitcoin to have more people running nodes, including miners, and there should be a natural diversity in node policies. As was stated before, OCEAN is on a path to decentralization and very soon we are going to be in a position where hashers will be able to fully participate as miners and perform the intelligent parts of mining such as deciding which version of node software to run and what filters or other policies to apply to block template construction.

1. Core's plan was always to roll out 80 byte OP_RETURN incrementally by starting with 40 to see if it broke anything and then ramping shortly up to the intended 80.

2. #Bitcoin Core, having finished that project, has had 80 byte OP_RETURN for nearly a decade now. 85%+ miners have been set to 80 bytes for the same amount of time. Read the commit log. Read the bitcoin-dev mailing list.

3. You admitted on Shitter/X that you went along with the Core team because you had your own fork where you can make any changes you'd like.

4. Now that Jack has invested in you to decentralize mining, you've cast a shadow over the launch by revolting against the implicit op_return contract in #Bitcoin Core which has been standardized by the network over the last decade.

5. Whirlpool transactions are trivial to detect and you could whitelist them no problem. This is about you kneecapping #Bitcoin fungibility while gaslighting the space about decentralization.

6. What's more centralized? The development process in bitcoin:master with a decade+ track record, ~1000 developers, and 20,000+ code reviews, or Knots, where one dude makes god commits daily, breaking critical aspects of #Bitcoin?

7. Until Ocean.xyz launches #StratumV2, you're just another gatekeeper. Ordinals ia going to run out of customers like every other shitcoin. We don't need to compromise Core just because you didn't get your way 10 years ago.

8. GFY.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I agree with Laser. Censoring whirlpool transactions is pants over head retarded. I hate ordinals but let the shitcoin casino players run out of payday loan money.

Luke I bet knows all this and is prob so into himself he is high on his own farts.

nostr:note19jaycas8dn972e0ujqgq2mpyp6u96awpyum33rrpza3lqmn3ufnqxkft7t

"implicit contract"... dafuq

Field length in network protocols matters; you can extend a field, but reducing it at a later stage after network participants (like whirlpool) have begun to rely on the field length is considered a backwards breaking change.

You don't know what you're talking about

So answer the fucking post coward

Luke has answered this elsewhere. It's unfortunate his positions on specific topics aren't indexed somewhere that he can just reference by code.

His position is that from inception the field was standardized at 40 bytes, intentionally to limit spam. So reliance on and design around an expanded field size is a mistake on their end, for non-conforming to the "spec".

Things like this in protocols tend to be worked out by representative bodies and industry boards such as w3c, iso, among others over time. These standards also tend to compete for adoption.

Bitcoin being money, a new project and a philosophical or religious paradigm shift for participants, with enourmous social consequences, it will take a while to smooth out the standard.

That's a falsehood Seagull, and you can find it out yourself by looking at the bitcoin-dev mailing list and the bitcoin git repo.

80 bytes was the intended OP_RETURN this whole time, it's just that Core decided to incrementally roll it our for safety reasons. After 9 months at 40 bytes, with nothing breaking, they concluded at 80 bytes, which it's been that way for a decade now.

Luke is lying.

Dude... You're arguing over a configurable default...

We finally agree on something

We probably agree on a lot 🤷‍♂️

Cypherpunks write code.

💯🎯 nostr:npub1x458tl7h9xcxa66vr4a8pg0h2qz96pnhwnfpcra0le9090uk5t5qw7armt

Funny. I was saying this on Shitter last year. Bitcoin fixes itself. We don’t need to interfere Luke. Just sounds more like he just doesn’t really get Bitcoin. Sorry, not sorry.

Bitcoin can't be coded itself

That’s not what I’m saying. Bitcoin had its foundation laid and it’s working. The math, the economics of it all will sort itself out. Don’t add anymore strokes to the painting.

But you're wrong.

Very rarely. But ok. Say what you want. It takes about 6 months to a year for my points to be validated and then I have my typical, “I told you so” moment 🤙

Well said! The minuscule hash rate of my 3 under-clocked space heaters will continue to point to Braiins pool.

Just to be clear I am not a fan of ordinals. Let the free market decide as described by Austrian economics. Layer twos are (presently) the only way to onboard 8 billion people to use Bitcoin. We might as well figure out the best way to build layer twos on Bitcoin.

If there was a way to ban shitcoiners from using Bitcoin's features without banning Bitcoiners, I'd be all for it.

Nah. Fuck communism.

Bitcoin is for anyone. Let the free market speak

My feeling is that it already has. The numbers are atrocious.

The numbers of what specifically?

By the way, apparently the 42 limit standard is his version, not cores. The standard he's talking about is his series of patches he has been advocating for merging to core for several years.

Not so much lying, as being zealous.

This distinction might be damage control though.

Set aside technical debate for a second and observe the npubs themselves. One pushes psyops ; the other is focused and speaks without trying to "one up" anyone. After noticing which is which, **_then_** consider the technicals.

nostr:nevent1qqszewjvwcrkejl9vh7fqyq9dsjqawzawhqjwdcc33s3wclsdec7yesppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsr26r4lltjnvrwadxp67ns58m4qpzaqemhf5sup7hlujhjh7t296qrqsqqqqqp6rtvcy