In retrospect, it was obvious the letter they signed was justification to merge a clearly controversial PR. It's not obvious what the second and third order effects will be, but I guarantee this will not play out the way that the signers of the letter think it will.

Happy to eat my words and say that I was wrong if a year from now if there isn't a significant growth (>100%) in large OP_RETURN outputs (>160 bytes).

I challenge any signer of the letter to provide a similar metric to measure whether what they're doing works and under what conditions they'd be willing to admit they were wrong.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Out of band transactions are detected as such, correct?

You don't have to go out of band to get non standard transactions in a block.

According to core devs those transactions should reduce & go into the "standard TX" bucket.

Standard and non standard are still both concensous so the semantics really don't matter anyways. Should consolidations be non standard? Those aren't transactions between peers. What about lightning channels? HTLCs? Why are those "standard"? The metric is arbitrary. Basically a "non standard" should be a transaction most people normally wouldn't want to send because they don't make sense. ie spending more on fee than you're sending. What's standard will always change as we learn more and more how to scale.

Core devs literally state that out of band transactions lead to miner centralization.

I don't think that shit would ever materially affect how centralized mining becomes / is.

I believe OOB transactions do centralize mining. In a big way over a long time frame. My point was you don't have to go OOB to get non standard transactions mined. It's just easier if you do.

Although really I tend to agree with you that miner centralization is a threat to Bitcoin at all. If a pool is misbehaving or too large, people can easily point their hash elsewhere. At the same time, the incentive structure is to be the biggest pool and to be the biggest pool you have to have the best roi for your pool participants. if a pool is saturated because of size, roi becomes worse for participants, and they switch pools to a smaller pool seeking more risk with higher return 30% - 40% seems to be the threshold. It's a self regulating system.

That's not to say it's something we can take our eyes off of or that it doesn't matter. Just to say currently it's not a problem and I don't see it becoming one.

This is why I was largely against Oceans marketing campaign. I don't believe that what they're doing "decentralizes" mining in any other way than any other new pool would. So participants can make their own templates... they had a choice before of template if they wanted to pick a pool that made ones they agreed with or with stratum v2. Don't read that as I'm against Ocean. I'm not. More pools are good DATUS is good. I mean to say I think they had a dishonest marketing campaign to pile altruistic users into their pool.

Ocean & Braiins are two pools with clear leadership compared to the rest.

They have also put in a lot of effort educating Bitcoiners in their own ways.

I appreciate all people taking on Bitmain & the rest of the giant corporates.

Vilifying Bitmain historically has been good enough marketing in driving some hash to other pools.

Ocean is marketing their nuances and clearly helping decentralize the pool industry - there is no controversy there for me.

I mined with braiins when I was a miner.

Why no bitaxe?

I don't want to play the loto. I'll just stack more sats instead. My nodes make the rules anyways.

You don't sound poor, open source mining hardware needs your support 🤟

I did think about building and selling them. I have the technical know how to setup a site and process bitcoin payments. But my plate is full and I have no time for a side gig rn. Maybe on e day in the future. I always wanted a brick and mortar Bitcoin store with Bitcoin books, hardware wallets, education and other high end good like art from madex, clothing from west major and leather goods leathermint and stuff like hodlbutter, tallow soap honey and coffee from oshi soapminer and various others. I would certainly have a few bitaxes in stock. My kids are 2 and 4. Maybe when they're a little more independent and I have a bigger nest egg to fall back on.

Sounds like a dope pursuit even if it's just for your kids' education!

I would run one and be thrilled to receive one as a gift though! The bitaxe IS a super awesome project.

What is monetary maximalism?

The opposite of engineer retardation.

No you

HOARDING corn without permission

For anyone not aware nostr:nprofile1qqsve2jcud7fnjzmchn4gq52wx9agey9uhfukv69dy0v4wpuw4w53nqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcuseaka PR to remove the filter entirely was NOT merged. A PR was merged an hour ago to uncap the limit but keep the filter. Core kept an unnecessary filter (imo) to appease plebs and they're still going to be mad about this non issue.

I'll admit I'm wrong when you show me how your filter can stop my transaction from propogating through the network.

News flash, it can't and if it could then Bitcoin would be useless. Read that again. "...your filter can stop my transaction..."

That's NOT something we want in Bitcoin. No matter what you think spam is or isn't. Bitcoin should be uncensorable period. Luckily for everyone, it is. Let them waste generation wealth on silly pictures and just leave it alone. Bitcoin is fine.

nostr:nevent1qqsra5agttcfk77mqdwj5rquvg8t6l09vczjgxk6vfvwk93k208d2dspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczypan77qrw5r5daz4gyazy8uqje0wed577vy096k3m2yuctyfzt5ksqcyqqqqqqgy264qp

Growth in OP_RETURN usage doesn’t prove your point at all, Jimmy.

You should want more usage of OP_RETURN instead of the witness data or bare multisig outputs. It’s simply less harmful.

Binary logic. If there is a problem, it will be in the nuance.

What I explained WAS nuanced.

You can’t stop “spam” (if you can even define such a thing) or the inclusion of arbitrary data into the blockchain. There’s literally an infinite number of ways to do it.

So the best option we have is to make the least harmful methods (aka OP_RETURN) the most accessible.

Stop trying to write code in terms of bitcoin maxi morality.

Why would you use op_return if you're already using discounted witness data, this would be new uses *in addition* to that

Multiple projects (like Counterparty) already used OP_RETURN- why don’t you ask them that?

Because that was before segwit

They’re already making upgrades that leverage SegWit/Taproot.

what is the economic incentive to use OP_RETURN instead of witness or bare multisig?

OP_RETURN is objectively more expensive.

OP_RETURN is more easily indexed for use by nodes.

Also, it’s part of the TXID, which means it’s better for things that require time stamping.

Simp daddy

Let's make a shitcoin!!

🍿

Current Knots count on Clark Moody: 2254, 10.18% network share.

nostr:nevent1qqsra5agttcfk77mqdwj5rquvg8t6l09vczjgxk6vfvwk93k208d2dsmnpgf5

Can we just delete Core yet?

At this point, yes

You always could but you’re afraid. Just create the code you want. I’ll stick with Core.

Not afraid lol. Just wise to what's coming for you.

I don't run Core and never will.

I think this is them deleting themselves

This! Shame on them

Wtf they stole bitcoin?

Wtf are you talking about? No one can “steal bitcoin”

I'm rapping nigga, shit

Other than people making large OP_Returns because there is a controversy around them – e.g. to ironically publish quotes – there are hardly any in the chain. We're hoping they increase in number, with people using them instead of unprintable outputs.

Prune-ability is a good point - out of band transaction incentives could also be a point that makes sense to me.

Presumably that's "unprunable" in the unlikely case anyone was confused.

So you're pushing through these changes because you 'hope' it fixes something? Shame on you

I hope there will be more (prunable) op returns in a year and fewer fake signatures. Is that not what you would hope?

There is not economic incentive for that. Both system will be used for spamming the network.

That is their proposed strategy: Hope

There will be more op returns and more fake sigs. Guaranteed

The problem is they push things without consensus 😕

Someone paying off the signers in a big way