Nostr Web Client

Remind me again why people are so up in arms about spam on the timechain?

Spam/excess data effects node runners. Node runners are the people who voluntarily run nodes to enforce the rules of the network, without them you don't have decentralized enforcement of bitcoin rules. More data means more storage space required on the node. Keeping it smaller allows the average person to run node, right now we're creeping over 1TB so those who haven't moved to 2TB will need to upgrade. SSDs are the best option, but they aren't cheap and they blowup every so often. If you want to go all out and protect your node data then you need 2 for RAID and that's gonna get pricey.

I still don't quite get why this extra data can't be put on an L2 that people can choose to run or somehow linked to the main timechain instead of directly on it. It seems messy with people just triyng to jam it in instead of getting a better solution.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ChipButty 8mo ago

Pruned nodes are the way forward if we want more nodes running.

decentralizovaný jelen 8mo ago

Pruned nodes cannot prove immutability from genesis block.

sedited 8mo ago

Yes they can, pruned nodes fully download and validate all historical blocks. They just throw the data away once they validated it.

decentralizovaný jelen 8mo ago

Agree. But they still need the data from someone.

This change will result to even more pruned nodes, consequently more centralization on the level of "providers of the true"

sedited 8mo ago

We should always calculate future resource burdens on nodes with full blocks, if the premise is that we want Bitcoin to be used. Changing policy does not change this calculation.

decentralizovaný jelen 8mo ago

And it will increase because of this change. 😢

sedited 8mo ago

What will increase?

decentralizovaný jelen 8mo ago

Storage space needed for full block nodes.

sedited 8mo ago

If the assumption is that blocks will be full, which is the assumption we should be operating under, this is not true. Blocks can't get fuller than full, because of a change to policy.

mIX 8mo ago

Correct, but if we fill blocks full of contracts and other data then there's less room for payments, the purpose of the network. It's a lot of different trade-offs to balance. I feel as if these changes are accepted then there's a good chance we start having a block size discussion right away because there's not enough block space.

I think we really need to keep it simple and focused or we risk blowing it all up.

sedited 8mo ago

Indeed, there might be a qualitative change, but no quantitative one for node runners. The change under discussion at the moment will probably not lead to a big change in data embeddings in the chain though. Stamps, brc-20, and inscriptions will porbably not move their infrastructure to a potentially more expensive OP_RETURN setup. Bare multisig, and emebedding data in the witness will probably remain more efficient for them. The positive hope of this change is that future protocols that need to anchor data in the chain every so often, will do so with in a prunable, and non-UTXO set polluting way. They will embed the data anyway, but changing the OP_RETURN limits might reduce harm.

Lyn Alden 8mo ago

That’s why block size limits exist tho.

mIX 8mo ago

https://youtu.be/zgsiDAhq4d4

Arthur Morgan 8mo ago

Node runners enforce the rules they agree with, only for the benefit of themselves (not the network as a whole). So it's not really an altruistic endeavor. I agree that putting random data on bitcoin is not ideal. But in an open and decentralised system, it cannot really be stopped.

mIX 8mo ago

It's for the benifit of myself, but it's for others who care about the same ideals/rules. The incentives rule. I don't quite buy the argument for it's all about me. One person is important, but also nothing when it comes to inforcing rules in a decentrilized system.