State-Level Attack On Bitcoin?
https://blossom.primal.net/f403b43ed90e880b0620b39c9243b6e41901a8223336e63d0d24a9e252c8c071.mp4
Discussion
Great breakdown nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0qy8hwumn8ghj7mn2w4khqtndv5hsthlfyp
Run Knots!
nostr:nevent1qqsy0e0fj8pwa7pk4yj568eyfpvu659xgxawxdwv0vd8g5p5uku7g5cj8tema
I find the CP argument unconvincing. It seems a scare tactic. Because most agree that when someone wants to spend the sats to get 100k data in a block they already can. Filters probably work a fair bit, but for the CP argument this would be irrelevant.
He's going to use whatever he can to push his agenda and divide bitcoin users, and his naive followers are most likely to succumb to it. His channel is primarily FUD.
His agenda is literally to keep bitcoin a monetary network. Not really sure why that HIS agenda because it seems like a lot agree. Would you call a big blocker in 2017 a person trying to "divide bitcoin users"? I just prefer to call them wrong
Interesting because I have called Kratter out as the new Roger Ver using his influence to misguide naive bitcoiners. Go ahead and suck up his FUD if you want. Kratter says he can't understand why Adam Back doesn't agree with his side of this debate. Oh well 🤷🏻
I'm a Knots supporter, but I'm not sure the CP argument does a great job other than scare people. It is definitely a possibility, but in reality it's mostly just NFT and other market making scams, like experimental side chains and whatever else.
That's why I would be more convinced that Back has to follow what his company's suits are pushing in coordination with other partners in the industry.
Adam Back caving into pressure from the suits. Makes perfect sense 🙄 You people will come up with all sorts of ridiculous reasons to convince yourselves that you are right about a problem that doesn't even exist.
So your argument is that he's infallible? Ok
No, not all. But to suggest Adam Back is going to say or do something that he believes would have negative consequences for bitcoin just to satisfy others is ridiculous and shows the depths of your (and your anti-spam cohorts, mostly newcomers to bitcoin following a few loud voices) desperation to justify your arguments.
I actually agree with you on the point that he most likely would not be willing support something he believes to be bad for Bitcoin.
That still doesn't mean he's right, so maybe you could use actual justification instead of appealing to authority?
Useless conversation probably, so I'll leave it at that.
Well your justification for Back being wrong is that he is likely doing because of pressure from others, all I've said is I disagree. You brought it up, not me and you haven't shown anything that could support your theory that he might be wrong or that he is caving to pressure. You are pushing conspiracy theories.
Looks like Adam Back is coming around...
His agenda is to drive people to use Ocean pool by manipulating people who can't be bothered to think for themselves.
Interesting... Never seen a paid ad by him for ocean. Actually never seen a paid ad on his channel ever. And you mean the only pool that seems to have a solution to mining centralization? What monsters haha
They collect operational fees when they hit blocks, retard.
Motivating people to move to a pool that is noncustodial, transparent, and actively fights against mining decentralization. Thats called aligned incentives, retard
Captured
Obscene
Record
Enthusiasts
Question:
Am I correct that even when running Knots to avoid relaying spam, any transaction that contains video or jpegs that gets confirmed will also get added to Knots nodes.
In other words a Knots node ultimately contains the same data as a Core node. Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, even if knots node does not rely a spam tx, if a spam tx makes it into a block, than it will be stored on all nodes (core or knots).
What makes it into a block is stored by all nodes
Came here to make the same comment. I love the videos and watch every one of them. I also switched to Knots…even before this op_return nonsense. However, if the transaction is confirmed, your Knots node is going to download and store it whether you chose to relay it or not.
With regard to the ‘attack’, is there some sort of legal distinction between ‘transmitting’ and ‘storing’ this horrific data nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezum3dw35jumt99uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59up0zady ?
The idea is that Knots filters will deter most spam. Spam would be more common without the filtering. If the spam makes it to a confirmed block, Knots respects the consensus rules and downloads the block, and will relay it when necessary.
(Ligit, non-snarky) Question(s):
In Core 30 are the settings to adjust OP_RETURN size being removed? Are these settings in Core 30 set at max size for OP_RETURN by default with no way to dial them down?
Thanks nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qppamhxue69uhku6n4d4czumt99uq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tpvfkx2tn0wfnj7ru4snc for making this clear in the most recent videos. Relaying this garbage IS the attack. It’s got nothing to do with the nodes ultimately having to download and store it in their copies of the time chain…it’s about distribution. I totally missed this.
I’m trying to gather ppl to create some real discussion between knots and core ppl.
Would you guys collaborate if I did a post on delving bitcoin expressing the concerns of knots ppl and asking core devs to address them?
I just feel there is no real discussion between the 2 parties, I’d like to channel the whole discussion in a single place and create some real conversations between the 2 parties
You are taking an ocean mining marketing stunt and blowing it way out of proportion.
Nice FED psyop bait and switch right here. So tell us Satan, why is uncompressed CP on bitcoin not a problem?
It's a huge problem. So why isn't the ACTUAL solution to the problem being discussed?
You mean a consensus change?
Here is my opinion:
We have 2 realities here-
#1 this op_return filter change in B-core software is required for the potential "attack" that knots is saying could happen.
#2 this change is NOT required and the CP attack could happen at any time.
Thus, we end up logically at the original question, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF MAKING THIS CHANGE THEN?
IMO there is no benefit to making this change and thus I will not make it on my node.
The benefit I think is that
1. The setting doesn't actually solve any problems.
2. The core devs were sick of the constant debate so they decided to free themselves of it by removing it entirely since it's not consensus critical.
I would prefer they keep the setting and I don't care if anyone runs anything else. I just don't want people to think that they are actually fixing any problem by setting datacarriersize because they're not.
Well who knows? The “CP attack” hasn’t happened yet, so why make the change?
I’m not very sympathetic to devs being “sick of” ANYTHING. Anybody who doesn’t freely contribute to free software should fucking quit and that especially includes this current batch of corporate losers.
Uncapped arbitrary data has been possible since 2010. Nothing is different. They realized filters don't work because they don't. I think the setting should stay but removing it is not a big deal because it doesn't work.
It’s a cultural issue. The devs do not set policy. Contrast with how full RBF came into being.
Also most op_returns are under 80B so the filter does work
I am SO CONFUSED by all of this. I'm also extremely depressed to learn that child sexual abuse images are being relayed on the bitcoin network. Actually I feel paralyzed and hopeless. I don't know what to do 😭😭😭
You are a State-Level attack on bitcoin dressed as CHild Porn police.