Without knowing much, my assessment very early on was, this was a relatively minor debate about OP_RETURN
However, what emerged from it were several realisations:
1. Bitcoin Core need a PR department and a lesson in humility.
2. We need to diversify Bitcoin so we are not dependent on one source of code.
3. We need to reverse direction and start moving away from spam on the blockchain.
How do you move away from spam on the blockkchain?
Slowly and with enormous difficulty.
The Core argument is that it's impossible and so we should mitigate spam and make it less destructive, which is a valid argument.
The Knots argument is it is possible to reduce by filtering, it is extremely unlikely that it can be eliminated, but we'll never know unless we try.
In terms of how we technically achieve this, this is a glimmer of hope:
nostr:note1j6n92hadyte3qd5j4nu6wga5zcxh097g5dv38qupg63ja35edeysm9gzdq
Filters are proving themselves already imo. People have not been using big OP_RETURNs for a while, and many people still do not due to requiring out of band submission.
And out of band submitters are experiencing longer confirmation times while they have to pay above average fees.
Yes
That didn't answer my question on how it is technically achieved. Ocean and DATUM have nothing to do with it, though they're great for mining decentralization.
Yes it did answer the question.
It did answer it exactly and 100% and yes Ocean and DATUM are an answer.
Of course, by definition we don't want Ocean becoming a dominant mining pool, that would be very bad.
It didn't. Ocean and DATUM is the answer for how you decentralize mining more and move toward allowing individual miners select their own block templates. It doesn't answer the question of: when choosing your own block template (as an individual miner or pool) how do you selectively choose what data is good or bad if all txn data looks the same? In a similar vain, the same question can be asked about relaying transactions and whether ultimately it is better to have a more restrictive default txn relay network with many more private ones and unpredictable blocks.
No, I didn't ask that question, nor am I seeking to answer it.
In a complex argument it is always possible to derail a valid answer by changing the argument.
You just did that.
Your points are valid and you are raising them, but I am not, nor am I offering to answer them.
None of the above invalidates my point, which is still 100% true and correct.
Also, I sound like Jameson Lopp right now, which is disturbing me immensely π
I didn't derail anything. The entire premise is based on the answer to the question I first asked. "How do you reduce spam on the blockchain?"
You may not have an answer to that question and that's fine. But the position you hold (reduce spam) absolutely depends on an answer to that question, which in reality doesn't have a good answer.
I can see why Lopp has ended up in his ivory tower.
You are building one for me right now π
Haha, no intention of sending you there, though it does often sound nice.
It was actually just an honest question though that I've asked myself just as often.
I'm also a big proponent of privacy improvements on the blockchain and someday it would be great to have privacy improvements where it is difficult or impossible to tell what exactly a transaction is (things like schnorr sig and taproot help). If we someday get there and all data looks the same, telling the difference between "spam" and "legit" will be a fruitless endeavour.
Privacy?
Who the hell is discussing privacy right now π
My life is weird, this is also happening at the moment π
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp6pmv65w6tfhcp73404xuxcqpg24f8rf2z86f3v824td22c9ymptqyv8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyzvcth0zuvunwh8mxpn7tve6eenk7vjmec6xp5yf320gzpzqp04yj9sfted
Believe it or not topics can have implications on other related topics.
Yes a friend told me that once.
We donβt speak much anymore π
You seem to be an adversarial type when simply confronted with questions. I won't bother you anymore.
You're fine π«
I just don't have the answers to life the Universe and everything.
You don't? I thought 42 is the general consensus for years...
Youβre a genius.
Right, youβre in charge of the Core vs Knots debate now π
ok, datacarriersize shell be 42!
The world is weird sometimes π³
https://d-central.tech/the-debate-over-ocean-pools-op_return-size-limit/
No that was me!
I would agree, in general. I don't want spam either but I fear it's inevitable. I whole heartedly disagree with picking and choosing txs, as far as I'm concerned that is not what should dictate anything in life. In any case, if you pay enough and go direct to a miner, you'll get it through. Ossification, perhaps? Humility, definitely. Decentralising the fundamental essence of Bitcoin, the protocol would be impossible, Shirley. It would lead to a one armed waiter situation, only forks
Don't call me Shirley π
Your first point is Cores argument, and it is valid.
All your points are valid.
Normally in a discussion, both sides are right. You just have to decide which right you want to be.
https://mikehardcastle.com/2016/09/08/sometimes-both-sides-are-right/
What a day to give up glue sniffing.
Open debate is definitely needed and this is where the splitters gained traction. As far as I am aware, the blocking on their usual channels came because of abuse. Bloody millennial children were brought up not knowing the slings and arrows of childhood rebukes. You spaz. Flid. You Joey. Now they get all upset. Pussies. That all said, I feel that the DashJrs of this world capitalised on that. I am sorry but I will never trust that man.
Once again, we are not running to Knots, we are running away from Core.
And yes Dojo, blah blah blah π
Have a great day my friend, try amphetamines π
Agreed. What has been positive is to learn more about the attacks and attackers of Bitcoin and how they are working.
It may be Bitcoin Core Devs actually trying to reduce UTXO bloat, simplify the code etc by helping Spammers, but they didn't bring the noderunners with them for some reason. And is this the right way to be communicating with adversaries.
Yes, agreed
Same.
