Nostr Web Client

BLOCK 895904 Mined by VIABTC There are no op_return transactions nor fees. I also checked

BLOCK 895903 Secpool

BLOCK 895902 Antpool

BLOCK 895901 Secpool

BLOCK 895900 F2pool

BLOCK 895899 BTC.com

BLOCK 895895 Foundry and none of them have any transactions with op_return nor fees. UNLESS I am looking at it wrong. I could be wrong right now.

Does every miner want to offer this “service?” Are they are trying to say that large miners have spent literally hundreds of thousands and millions and millions of dollars on equipment, staff, research, acquisition, buildings, electricity, miner, shipping, internet, computers ect. But they can’t afford to find 1 person that will set up out of band transactions for them?

Come on man. I was born at night but not last night.

Yes, people go to great lengths to accomplish their goals. I for one… I AM THAT GUY!!!! 100% Just because people will pay a miner on the side to get what they want doesn’t necessitate the change to make it easier for them.

Most people usually don’t go around checking front door knobs for open doors because in most places we assume they are locked. (In the U.S. specifically.) Let’s imagine a place that never locked their doors. I would assume more people would probably use the option to try the door knob because it is easy access. So in around about way this would be encouraging people to try to open the front door.

In theory it sounds noble to help the witness data users, but the people that don’t offer this service probably have no interest in it. UNLESS they are talking about something personal to themselves. What would be the incentive to have out of band transactions? Who would need such a service? A large government that wants to go undetected? A military? A large corporation? Have people like you and I needed that service? I haven’t needed it. I just send on chain so I compete with everyone. Or is that a clue? Why wouldn’t anyone want to compete with high fees?

I am not trolling when I ask this question. What is the big deal with an unspendable UTXO? Isn’t a UTXO just a UTXO? As a matter of fact. Isn’t that similar to a double negative? An unspendable unspent transaction output. Please try to understand. Someone is trying to play us.

If I have a UTXO and I never ever send it anywhere isn’t that a (U-UTXO) unspendable unspent transaction output? Satoshi has UUTXO’s doesn’t he? It sounds technical to not want a U-UTXO, but in practice…… how do we know which UTXO are unspendable? When someone looses their keys with no backup isn’t that a U-UTXO? It’s just that no-one knows the UTXO is a U-UTXO. RIGHT?

Someone please tell me that I am off base.

#Bitcoin

#lightning

#BitcoinKnots

#BitcoinCore

#Noderunner

#TothebitcoinCEO

#mempool

#taprootwizards

#Ocean

#Datum

#bitcoinmining

#DIYBitcoin

#runanode

#runyourownnode

#donttrustverify

#Satoshi

wymike 8mo ago

Im not sure what you’re trying to tell me with the first bit of the post. Is it that no-one is currently making out if band transactions directly with miners? If so, considering that fees are currently so low, wouldn’t this mean that there is little to no demand for these types of transactions? And if there is no demand now why would that change if the OP_RETURN limit is removed?

I’m not an expert. All I can go on is what I have read and heard and form my own opinion. Write or wrong I just don’t see it as being that big a deal. As long as miners choose what goes into a block people are going to get non financial transactions onto the blockchain if they really want to.

All the JPEG spam stopped not because it was too hard but because it was too costly. I think the same economics will play out here.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

kc 8mo ago

That makes 2 of us. I am not an expert either I’m just looking for more clarification on how I see the issues they are dealing with. Thank you for being level headed and responding. I want to learn more. I am under the impression that I could be wrong and my mind will be changed.

People should definitely be able to get their non financial transactions into the chain. What I don’t understand is why does the op_return limit need to be taken away so the non financial transactions can get those transactions into the chain cheaper? Shouldn’t all transactions have to bid the same amount to get into the chain.

wymike 8mo ago

I don’t think they would necessarily be cheaper, they would still be competing with all other transactions.

Something Shinobi said on WBD (with a listen if you haven’t already) was that not having visibility about what’s going into a block can be an issue if you need to make a transaction ‘now’ If you don’t have a clear picture of the mempool you don’t know what you need to pay to get your transaction confirmed.

The start of the whole thing was to do with a layer 2 that needed 140 bytes in OP_RETURN rather than 80.

kc 8mo ago

I will have to watch that asap.

kc 8mo ago

I have started the WBD podcast, but couldn’t finish today. I will watch it and reply for sure. Thanks for sending the recommendation. My respect for Shinobi has gone up and I’m only 10 minutes in. He has already said that he didn’t read the Citrea white paper nor the pull request. He is going off of the information he has received from other developers. So far it is worth the watch. It’s not that inscriptions or jpegs bloat the UTXO set that he is worried about. They want this change specifically for Citrea. This doesn’t sound so sneaky anymore because it makes sense. There is a motive. I still will filter my nodes, but I understand why they want to push this. Doesn’t make it right nor wrong.

kc 8mo ago

To make this post not so long and boring… I will try to summarize by making the blanket statement that both sides of this thing aren’t saying that they see things from the other side. I will do that now.

I understand what he is saying when he says “transactions will still end up in the blockchain.” I feel that any jpg, inscription, etc should be allowed in the chain. I also understand that my filter does not prevent it from being in the chain. I don’t want to speak for everyone out there. If another node runner wants higher limits, or lower limits, wants to fit 4mb pictures into a block then I welcome their choice and will defend their right to choose what filters they want. Where we diverge is that I want the choice. I don’t want Jameson, Peter, Shinobi, Luke, Shitcoin Mechanic (I only use that name because he used it during the debate,) WK057 or anyone else to tell me what settings I should have. Satoshi Gave me a way to have a choice and I want to exercise that choice. So when the few developers say that they are unilaterally deleting the choice…. I have to voice my concern and take appropriate steps to ensure that I have a choice.

Thank you for telling me about that video. I learned a lot and it cleared up the real motivation for them wanting to change and change so quickly. When I heard all 3 of them say “it doesn’t matter, but we are changing it anyway…” I knew there was more to the story. They are dealing with Citrea and they developed Clementine which needs the 140 instead of 80. I have no problem with that. My problem is that they tried to pull the wool over like people don’t think, or aren’t developers so we wouldn’t understand. They used the example of lightning or other layer 2 “maybe needing more op_return space in the future… Things weren’t adding up. Now is see… The developers want to help Citrea use 140 of op_return which is more expensive than 80 of witness, but is it more expensive than 80 of witness plus 40 of op_return? I don’t know that answer. Now I am just thinking out loud and rambling lmao