MY CONCERN ISN’T REALLY OCEAN. THIS IS NOT A SURPRISING MOVE BY LUKE BASED ON HIS HISTORY AND OCEAN DOES NOT HAVE MUCH HASH.
THE CONCERN IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. YOU CAN BET THAT THE LARGE MINING POOLS ARE HAVING CENSORSHIP CONVERSATIONS RIGHT NOW BASED ON THIS.
MEANWHILE A BUNCH OF YOU ARE HITTING ME WITH SEMANTICS. DO BETTER.
I seriously doubt many pools are discussing how to limit their revenue.
Quite the opposite - they love the recent developments that have boosted fees.
Why do so many maxis dislike you? Serious question. I only know about the sellout & shitcoiner arguments but don’t really know if you’re a good guy or a bad guy in this story.
Perhaps because I say what I think rather than conforming to whatever the current popular narrative is; I've been cancelled countless times.
Also, I think there's plenty of room for non-Bitcoin crypto networks that offer different utility. I explore many technologies and I don't apologize for it.
People tend to form a mental model of me based upon my posts they've seen, then they get upset when I do something that breaks their model.
IDK about "good" vs "bad" guy because it's subjective. I consider myself good because I've educated many people and also helped many folks secure their funds. I don't defraud folks - the services I provide are quite transparent, even if some folks disagree with them.
Lopp didn’t you support XT which had actual blacklisting and tor fuckery in it.
I mean since Odell is fine digging up things from 10 years ago to attack Luke.
I supported BIP101 which was implemented in XT.
You're thinking about a change that deprioritized connections from tor exit nodes to mitigate DoS attacks conducted via tor to fill up connection slots. I was neutral on that one.
Yes that was indeed the sus rationale used at the time to attempt to destroy privacy in Bitcoin.
The real question is: when the government forces companies like RIOT and MARA to censor transactions, will they comply or move their hashrate to a different jurisdiction? How will market participants respond to their decision. And how long before capital controls become “those machines don’t leave our borders” controls?
Welcome to the future motherfuckers
Lol. Hashrate will move, regardless. Their may be pain during transition but the net result will be even more decentralized mining as the non-“public” miners move to other locations/pools with better conditions.
Either the economics of bitcoin work, or they don’t. They are based on allowing the free market to do its thing. I don’t believe this can be stopped. If authorites squash/capture one market, two free ones will pop up to replace it due to incentives alone.
Nah, if there is any brains at all with the authorities, best to keep a quiet eye on it as-is less they force it adapt and decentralize even further. China made a big mistake. I suspect the IS may learn from that.
Hope you’re right. We don’t have a free market in the US and yet the world dumps its capital here all the same because of the incentives at the margins.
It’s wise not to underestimate our central planners. While we think they’re schmucks, they’ve not been unsuccessful on a macro level thus far.
I get your point.
But every tyranny, every empire before them has fallen. I see no reason to believe this one is different.
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The idea is now out there. This is why you don’t need to hope in bitcoin, you can *know*.
You’re only hope is we get it right the first time, for everyone’s sake. But if we don’t, then we will try again. And again. And again. Entire races have seen generations come and go in pure slavery, and yet we keep gaining ground.
Mankind’s instinct and fate is to wrestle with and balance freedom and tyranny.
Maybe not pools exclusively, but someone is paying attention and taking notes.
I DID NOT EXPECT A COINJOIN BAN BY OCEAN. WHAT A LET DOWN. DIDNT SEE THAT COMING. THIS MINING POOL PROBLEM IS A HARD ONE.
You see it’s not a coinjoin ban. Because op_return is not used in coinjoin tx but rather in tx0(transaction zero), which is not a coinjoin txn!
Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners. then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path.
Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection.
The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.
Thanks for clarifying
Plebs should not lend their Hash to pools that censor transactions.
THERE'S NO WATER LEFT
ELI 5. Serious question:
What is the problem if a mining pool does not want to process a transaction? Isnt this going to be picked by other miners who are willing to mine, use their hash and receive the reward?
Isnt this the same as a restaurant owner saying that he does not want to do business with a certain type of customer as this will hurt his business?
The problem of transaction censorship in Bitcoin mining pools is important because there is a large imbalance between the cost of censorship and the cost of avoiding censorship.
For example, if transactions to a certain address (address A) are censored by some mining pools, the owner of this address will have to spend additional time and money to bypass the censorship. A transaction that would have been processed in 10 minutes without censorship might take 20 minutes, or they might have to find a mining pool that doesn't censor and pay extra.
If the owner of address A made a costly transaction and moved the balance to another address (address B), the censor could simply add address B to the censor list to continue the censorship. However, if the owner wishes to transact again, they will have to spend the same amount of money they spent to make the transaction at address A again.
In such a situation, can a user who is being censored by a mining pool be considered a legitimate user of Bitcoin? Can the Bitcoin network be considered neutral? Why should the owners of addresses A and B incur additional costs? Is the Bitcoin network providing a rationale to justify this situation?
There is one cheapest way for the owners of addresses A and B to use Bitcoin normally. It's to give in to the censors. But is this the path Bitcoin wants to take?
Therefore, I believe that censorship of transactions by mining pools undermines Bitcoin's censorship resistance and neutrality. The question of spam filtering versus censorship is not really important here. What matters is that if you can filter spam, you can also censor transactions.
#Bitcoin
10분/20분 예시는 해당 풀의 해시레이트네 따라 달라질 것 같습니다. 또 들어주신 상황은 최근 F2Pool이 OFAC 제재 리스트를 필터링/검열했고 그것이 발견되어 결국 필터링/검열을 멈춘 사례와 딱 들어맞는 것 같습니다.
그런데 전체적으로는 동의하기 어렵습니다. 이러한 속성은 시작부터 있던 속성이고 피할 수 없다고 생각합니다. 따라서 올바른 판단을 할 수 있도록 무엇이 옳은지 무엇이 그른지 판단할 수 있는 능력을 기르는 것이 중요한 것 같습니다. 노드를 통해 적극적으로 행동한다면 더 좋을 것 같습니다.
BRO YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.
I'm totally with you as a small steel runner.
It's a bid to encompass, pervert, and extinguish competition.
That's some Bill Gates shit.
Slippery slope100% is the signal amongst the noise in this conversation!
CENSORING ANY TRANSACTION IS A BULLSHIT MOVE
#semantics
industrial grade SEMI-CENTRALIZED miners are bigger THREAT to BITCOIN - HASHING POWER - NOT any pool or 7% total supply left to mined !
FUCKED 
1/ Censorship resistance is directly dependent on the number of synched nodes that track and validate their own txs
2/ Blockchain bloat is the main hurdle to growing synched nodes from 10,000s PCs to 1,000,000,000s phones !
Every bit/tx counts, therefore it is the opposite: the good actors are the most conservative on tx size limits
Miner "Censorship" is trivially overcome with high fees
I'm sorry, should every pool be forced to mine your spam transactions in their blocks? That sounds like a violation of free speech to me.
I see what you mean. On the other hand, why should Bitcoin Core have a monopoly on the doctrine? I am glad that there are other bitcoin clients with different policies.
What has to be clarified is whether Ocean is specifically targeting these coinjoin transactions or just happens to have a lower OP_RETURN limit.
They just happen to have that limit. Some services that rely on OP_RETURN to function can be affected here. But one has to say that relying on being able to inject arbitrary data into your tx is just shitty engineering. Other coin join services don't do this, which is MUCH better for privacy, which is the whole point.
We have to hit you with semantics because shitcoiners have been fooling people with limited technical knowledge into complacency by using misleading semantics. Study up on mempool policies and why they have been in place since day 1 before you throw around loaded terminology like 'censorship'.
ALL I HEAR IS "I AM FINE WITH BRC-20 SHITCOINERS RIPPING OFF NEWBIES WHILE BLOATING THE TIMECHAIN WITH GARBAGE, MAKING IT LESS DECENTRALISED"
DO YOU ALSO LET STRANGERS PEE IN YOUR LIVING ROOM ?
