There’s currently a malincentive for some class of users to bloat the UTXO set by embedding data in fake pubkeys. This could over time make it unnecessarily costly to run nodes, harming decentralization and thereby potentially Bitcoin itself.

Increasing the OP_RETURN relay limit takes away this malincentive.

You’re welcome :)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Perfect. Exactly what I expected.

"This could over time" - those are the key words right there.

Here is what you don't get:

We will not accept changes to layer one based on some vague theory about something that might go wrong someday for some unknown 'class of user' who may eventually show up.

You make changes to layer one ONLY when absolutely necessary.

You're gaslighting. Go find something better to do with your time. Bitcoin doesn't need your theories. It needs people like you to leave it the hell alone.

So in your view we should not anticipate, and only act when it’s already too late.

Ok yeah disagree.

But the good news is you don’t have to upgrade if you don’t want to! :)

So there’s no middle ground for you?

You’re saying we must act on potential problems now—before they exist—because once we see them, it’ll be too late?

No.

You anticipate problems, draft possible solutions, and keep them ready. If an issue actually emerges, the community reaches consensus and implements the best fix.

What you’re proposing is gaslighting—a trojan horse for more ā€œfixesā€ to problems that don’t exist.

The good news? I’m running Knots—a real solution to a real problem: a rogue core team trying to strong-arm and gaslight the network into compliance.

You’re solving nothing. There’s no problem to fix. Either focus on real issues or find hypothetical ones that actually matter.

> core team trying to strong-arm

How? :)

By trying to force changes to the software that a massive portion of the community vehemently disagrees with. They have not proven these changes will help, and they have not addressed the potential problems the changes may cause.

What they propose involves philosophical changes to fix potential problems that do not exist at this time.

We don't need that on layer one. We need to leave layer one alone until actual problems begin to surface.

Releasing free and open source software is ā€œforcing changesā€?

It’s not anyone’s pet project, Core was the reference implementation

It’s only the (de facto) reference implementation if people use/treat it as such.

What's your take on the ~1500 unreviewed commits that Luke forces on Knots users? And how do you even know what's in these committs?

The gaslight lights the light with gassy light gas.

"I’m running Knots—a real solution to a real problem" šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

What's the problem?

These are not potential problems. We already saw this play out during a spam hype in 2015. Spammers moved to fake key outputs, which lead to unnecessary permanent bloat utxo set bloat. It is likely that such a cycle will occur again that it happened three times already now.

Just a hint. The "class of users that bloat the UTXO set" are the bad actor Citrea.

So their bad action bloating the UTXO is excused to blaot the OP_RETURN by compromised Core devs, instead to fix the root cause.

That is what Aaron don't tell you.

https://r2a.primal.net/uploads2/0/83/62/08362e5e64680649ba147a87c35ec20f949f3f0662885fd3944b9fce72b171e1.mp4

Some more info on Citrea here

nostr:nevent1qqszw0l3d058e3rdplvxw8fge7dgg6azre3cvdz8dlzas3r0f93q62gppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgcwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxvmm4de6xz6tw9enx6tce8vcxf

What is the root cause that needs fixing here?

Pubkeys!

glad to see more reasonable takes on nostr than the shitshow that is X