Nostr Web Client

1) I guess ppl who were and are still now against non-monetary uses of bitcoin are simply "monetary maxis" who want btc to function PRIMARILY for monetary purposes (and I am one of those). I don't mind if btc is used for other purposes, but I feel like we first need to establish btc as monetary protocol, and only AFTER this is secured then sure, add other stuff on it as long as they don't interfere with the monetary use cases.

Don't know enough about Taproot to express an opinion here. If you feel like wasting time explaining to me much appreciated, otherwise I'll dig into it!

2) Here I don't agree man. I think the mining fee will be more than enough for the next few decades, it is more than enough giving current and future btc price. Also, the difficulty adjustment is there to balance the mining ecosystem, I think it works great as it is and interfering by "manipulating" miners fee seems unneccessary and mostly a bad direction/priority to take (do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners? is that where our help should be directed?).

Also, nobody likes to see an empty memepool, but filling it with spam just so we can say it's full I don't think is the solution here (again, because tx fees are not what makes miners give up or take mining in the first place)

3) We are on the same page here man, we want the same thing. I don't give a shit about getting rich, this is a matter of contributing to the creation of a free monetary network and all the beautiful consequences that this entails. I hope I'm wrong but I thik we'll have to support the future hard fork sooner than we think, this whole thing smells fishy.....

might be that I am in my own bubble (and I am because I care about btc being money and nothing else) but all the "influencers" I follow are opposed to this change (btc session, the bitcoin way, bitcoin not crypto, Bram, Mattew krater, Jeff Booth). The only influencer I follow which is in favour if this is Lyn Alden, and her rational is what worries me the most as in one of her comment she said "do you think there's more demand for non-monetary uses of btc? then let's allow it"

Toad 7mo ago

2) >do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners

No, we help all miners. Not only the big ones? Also, calling non-monetary transactions "spam" is a bit one sided in my opinion. Sure, you can see it as spam, but why is that spam and all other transactions unrelated to you are not? Both are to no use for you and you still store both on your own node.

3) AFAIK Luke Dashjr is the ONLY contributor to bitcoin knots and he commits without reviews. I didn't fact check this, but that would be an issue towards me. The OP_RETURN unlimited thing is less important than an introduced vulnerability that nobody is aware of.

I know that we both want the same. My concerns are anyways for things far in the future. But imho, we need economical incentives and not morales. That being said, I don't care if this OP_RETURN limits gets increased or not, but I'm still not sure how I think about this "filtering" thing. I think filters are here to stay, but I just don't see how they are effective, if they don't follow economical incentives, because miners will use the software that does. Miners want the max amount of bitcoins possible for the least amount of invested energy. Knots nodes not forwarding these transactions is useless, as the big miners anyways have direct connections with each other.

I prefer following economical incentives, as long as the network remains stable. If we see that we took the wrong path, we should fix it from there. If we see that it works, then we have created the best bitcoin possible.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.