I'm curious too. #asknostr
Discussion
nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe nostr:npub1s5yq6wadwrxde4lhfs56gn64hwzuhnfa6r9mj476r5s4hkunzgzqrs6q7z nostr:npub16le69k9hwapnjfhz89wnzkvf96z8n6r34qqwgq0sglas3tgh7v4sp9ffxj
Any of you have someone who can explain this?
nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj76l8lp0 proposed a PR (proposed change to Bitcoin core) that makes arbitrary data on chain easier.
Someone pointed out that Lopp has investments that benefit from the PR being merged (officially added to the default distribution of core) he also has ongoing business ventures involving other blockchains that allow arbitrary data in blocks.
The whistleblower was banned based on a rule that says discussion must be about the PR and not any individual.
To me, a conflict of interest from the proposer is about the PR. I pointed out to Lopp that this was a gray area at best and asked if it was him or someone else who made the call to ban. He has not answered me so far.
As far as I can tell most of the noise other than that is the ordinals VS filters argument over again. This has the added angle that some are arguing the core team don't have the real mission at heart any more. The difference is this is deliberate more arbitrary data in blocks, taproot ordinals was discovered after the merge.
So small block vs big block v7 or whatever we're up to now.
Wouldn’t it at worse just cause a fork?
Only if we all know well enough to not upgrade to the new version of core after the merge.
nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qg7waehxw309ahx7um5wgkhqatz9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2ap0sfm3mt is the whistleblower. Feel free to jump in if I got anything wrong.
Check his feed for more info.
Has nostr:npub1wqlzdd8chs862luemq2ahd6mppsp9txzflz400h6xy844gydrzvq08rnrp weighed in on this?
Your very first sentence is false. nostr:nprofile1qqsve2jcud7fnjzmchn4gq52wx9agey9uhfukv69dy0v4wpuw4w53nqpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0yh8czy made the PR.
Also I did respond to you buying that I have no participation in Bitcoin Core moderation decisions.
Thanks for the clarification.
You didn't answer me when I asked, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure you are having the same conversation in a dozen threads at once. You have been otherwise responsive and honest with me on nostr to your credit.
I still currently am against this PR not that many care what a nobody like me says. I get that filtering is impossible but going out of our way to make it easier for people to cram more into a block is different than not filtering.
This strikes me as an arbitrary data first PR, not a monetary TX first thing with data sneaking in. Plenty of shitcoin chains for that.
I'm even pragmatic that block sizes will eventually grow. That is far away when cheap node hardware gets better. A node that can run core, run LN without timing out every TX, has batteries so your drive doesn't corrupt every power outage, and syncs within a week is already out of reach for many Americans never mind people in poorer countries. We are soon into requiring 2tb, how many nodes will just disappear when that happens rather than upgrade?
This is the note I published yesterday to you regarding moderation: nostr:nevent1qqsyrjsmtlvsp9rmj5538hfke5d5sl7se2nt8urapuatq94t48rf3hcpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuan4d3cx2mfwvdhk6tczyrmj3k0xuuzgxk88pyc0tjnykzthwrvcnnxcdp20ucvwm2wg5wqsvqcyqqqqqqg3zufld
nostr:npub16le69k9hwapnjfhz89wnzkvf96z8n6r34qqwgq0sglas3tgh7v4sp9ffxj is it possible for you to get a forum of three people with deep knowledge of this on an episode?
🤷♂️ distributed platforms have downsides.
I can see it, here it is:
You edited while I was responding, how does it make Bitcoin better money?
For Bitcoin to be the optimal base layer of a monetary system then it should be developer friendly for protocol devs to anchor second layers into the base layer. I wrote about Bitcoin's potential as a trust anchor 9 years ago:
https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-the-trust-anchor-in-a-sea-of-blockchains/
run when you see "should be"...
#hbdgaf FOREVER BITCH.
Summary, Shitcoins on bitcoin.
Don't we get enough of that already with taproot wizards, ordinals, RGB, and more I'm too lazy to recall?
What notably isn't in your article is direct conversation about improving TPS in satoshis without giving up the game theory protections we currently have.
I guess as a pleb I’m trying to understand that if bitcoin could have just been destroyed this whole time by a core update than it’s not anti-fragile.
It doesn’t make sense to me how code can just make an update and turn it to a shitcoin without us just forking.
For an open source decentralized protocol it does seem like control over the "official" codebase is very centralized.
A contentious hard fork would be very damaging to the mission I think Bitcoin is for, which is to destroy fiat.
I think Bitcoin is in a good place to do that with its current functionality. There's no reason to push for significant changes to the protocol until it's more clear that it's needed for Bitcoin to continue to grow, and there should be broad agreement on those changes.
I need people way smarter than I to measure in on this.
nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg for one. We need a podcast with a bunch of people in the room.
Most node runners update when a core update comes out without thinking about it much. If we all do that after this PR is merged, no fork.
This is different in history because during the blocksize wars Core told BSV to go away. BSV forked the software and made their own version creating the chain fork with their own chain. Core has been the source of truth for every fork in the past.
Now we are looking at a potential fork where the latest version of Core will no longer be the source of truth.