Freedom is when protocol abusers store JPEGs on my node, but it is not when a dude brings a competitor implementation to the table which is unlikely to gain total control over the network???
Discussion
knots does nothing to stop jpeg abuse
So at this point what exactly are you gaining ? A bitcoin that is more likely to be taken over by a single person?
If Luke were to make changes that no one agrees with we would NOT update or run and older version of core like what users are doing right now
It's quite possible not enough people who matter are paying attention to knots code.
This is a real risk factor.
The moment he does something stupid, the moment I switch to Core implementation as I did with Knots.
Knots node runners do not relay spam. The less nodes relaying spam the less chance of spam ending up in a block.
Simply not true, as long as there is some percentage of nodes that are relaying it, it will make it to a miner. Like i said, even with knots total control, people would just switch to miner apis in apps to broadcast
Yeah it will make it to a miner but less regularly
blocktimes are every ten minutes. Theres no possible way it would have any noticeable effect. I doubt you could delay them for more than a second or two
You are making lots of assumptions
Like that spammers would pay more money to spam in OP_RETURN then the SW for the so called health of the network.
It’s not that knots would prevent all spam but it definitely would slow it down and make it tougher for spammers to propagate throughout the network.
Look these guys already have libre relay and disregard OP_RETURN limits but their transactions don’t get picked up by the network because no one runs Peter Tards spam blaster.
Let’s have a civil conversation about this on nostr:npub1c0rnyyhmdnvg6xkvrrmgf8rxp3r28jtjhad8vmze8rgxf87aed7qlltlvg 💬 we can let nostr:npub1ymt2j3n8tesrlr0yhaheem6yyqmmwrr7actslurw6annls6vnrcslapxnz moderate lol
*cough cough*
I think I’m suddenly coming down with something and conveniently won’t be able to attend
Not true.
"Information wants to be free" - a very old cypherpunk aphorism. Bitcoin's P2P network is gossip, by design - it only needs a few nodes to know about a transaction, and miners are strongly incented to be well connected to find out about txs as early as possible.
A version of bitcoin where it was easy to filter out transactions at the p2p level would be a complete failure in its most important property - censorship resistance.
Bad take. If it’s not a consensus rule it’s a preference. Core removing the ability to set a limit is ludicrous. The OP_RETURN is a feature not bug. nostr:note1sgs3mh7m49v5qj7gg3e3jvf47nhzwn7f59vepce74gs7s2snmfkqm90ml6
Ordinals are not related to OP_RETURN and, henceforth, not related to JPEGS. Does knots is keeping the OP_RETURN size limit?