Nostr Web Client

> On the exploit framing, I understand the analogy to using YouTube for storage or a bank database for encoding data. But there’s a key difference. Those are private platforms with terms of service. Bitcoin is a permissionless protocol. The question isn’t whether inscriptions are the intended use, but whether Bitcoin can remain permissionless while enforcing intended use.

bitcoin is a money protocol, break any other use case is not against the protocol. and again bitcoin doesnt live on the ether, in runs on people's devices. bitcoin is permissionless money.

> Now on consensus versus policy, you’re right that policy allows parallel rules without chain splits. That’s valuable. But when the debate becomes not just what policy individuals choose, but what policy should be standard or what pools should be boycotted for not filtering, we’ve moved from free market policy to prescriptive policy.

many policy has been part of the bitcoin for a very long time. they are part of what bitcoin is. only reason they are not consensus is just in case, so we dont accidentally trap ourselves. these are yes mostly standard. and many has the purpose of mitigating the blob data storage usage from the early satoshi days.

> Your vision of a free market of network policy with custom filter scripts and plugins is actually more aligned with permissionless principles than mandating everyone filter the same way. Let nodes compete, let fee markets work, let the best approach win.

exactly knots go up, and everyone has right to believe other implementation is shit, and go do wars on it. everyone has right to preach knots, and teach others why its the best option we have. its social. and because technically core arguments makes no sense, if people think longer than 10 mins.

Contra 2mo ago 💬 2

Bitcoin being a money protocol, agreed. But the mechanism that makes it work as permissionless money is validation without requiring permission or judgment about transaction purpose. Once we start validating based on intended use rather than protocol rules, we’ve introduced a gatekeeper even if it’s decentralized.

Longstanding policy does shape Bitcoin’s identity, fair point. But there’s still a difference between policy that protects structure and policy that judges content. Script size limits are structural. Deciding what data is blob storage versus legitimate use requires interpretation.

You’re right that everyone has the right to advocate for their preferred implementation and try to win that argument socially. That’s legitimate. My pushback is specifically when that advocacy uses fear and emergency framing rather than technical merit. Preach Knots on its merits, fine. Use CSAM panic to force immediate action, that’s manipulation.

If Knots wins on technical arguments and social consensus, so be it. But let it win on merit, not manufactured urgency.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nomadshiba⚡ 2mo ago 💬 1

OP_FALSE OP_IF and its variants are structure. if it wasnt a structure we would be able to filter it. we would had need machine learning to filter it. any IDE can detect unreachable code.

and BSV already did the exact same change. and we saw what happened. its not panic, if its real. also its not like people on the knots side doesnt make any technical arguments, there are many technical arguments made by knots side (its just there is also left side of the bell curve).

you can make technical arguments and also point out things like CSAM vulnerability at he same time. two things can exists and be true at the same time.

and CSAM is also a technically a valid concern based on history, what happened to BSV.

Contra 2mo ago 💬 2

The OP_FALSE OP_IF structure being detectable is a fair. If it’s identifiable as unreachable code, then filtering it is more technically objective than I was framing it.

What happened with BSV and CSAM? I’m not familiar with that specific case but would like to understand the precedent you’re citing.

I can accept that technical arguments and CSAM concerns can both be valid. My issue is specifically with the emergency framing and pool boycott tactics, not with raising CSAM as a legitimate risk factor in the debate.

If the technical argument is strong enough on its own merits and the BSV precedent demonstrates real consequences, then the case should stand without the NOW NOW NOW urgency that bypasses careful consideration

nomadshiba⚡ 2mo ago 💬 3

just search "BSV CSAM" on any search engine. it was a mess and node runners had to make their own client with filters. and invent pruning methods.

there is a rush because v30 comes out this week.

also you can watch videos of the "Bitcoin University" on YT , he aggregates many information in his videos. he has hours of content on it (probably, didnt count).

there is also a video of BitcoinMechanic called "Bitcoin OG and Legend Jason Hughes Explains the Damage Of 100KB OP_RETURN".

some old post from satoshi:

https://nostr.download/c9c2c3ec58e1d16d1e7662fad6bb46631fdbcbd7e7ac9433abfed1cd1c1c350d.webp

nomadshiba⚡ 2mo ago

you can also search: "BSV CSAM OP_RETURN"

Contra 2mo ago 💬 1

Thanks for the BSV context, I remember this now.

The BSV case actually proves my point. When the 100KB limit led to CSAM being uploaded, the solution was services like Money Button and BitcoinFiles blacklisting content at the application layer. They updated Terms of Service and moderated their platforms. The blockchain itself remained neutral while services filtered. That’s exactly what I’m advocating, individual operators making their own choices without protocol level censorship.

Satoshi said messages should not be recorded in the blockchain as a design principle. I agree with the intent. But there’s a difference between what Bitcoin should be used for versus hardcoding enforcement of that through filtering. Satoshi built structural constraints like block size limits, not content filters requiring ongoing human judgment about transaction intent.

The fundamental question remains, does Bitcoin survive through protocol neutrality plus responsible application layer filtering, or through coordinated protocol level censorship? BSV handled it without changing the base protocol. That’s evidence the permissionless layer can work while services act responsibly.

S!ayer 2mo ago 💬 5

Isn't BSV a Bitcoin fork? Or is that something else

nomadshiba⚡ 2mo ago

its a fork of bcash which is a fork of bitcoin.

What is bash

Bcash

Bitcoin cash?

yes.

So what's stopping people from just using these Bitcoin's?

nomadshiba⚡ 2mo ago

what? you meant "what is stopping people from just using these forks"?

nothing, go use them, leave the bitcoin alone. as i said at the higher in the thread.

S!ayer 2mo ago

But these are all Bitcoin?

Btw I didn't read your thread lol 🤣

BroJack 2mo ago 💬 1

You got it backwards Slayer. BTC is a Fork of BSV Brother.

BroJack 2mo ago 💬 1

Only back then BSV WAS BitCoin! The Corporation of BitCoin took the copyright name and tilted the B to right offset.

BroJack 2mo ago

Why? Because Child pron was posted… HA!!

BroJack 2mo ago

Good - I’m happy - you recall correctly. Your logic agrees with mine as well. Next awareness is #Terranode. It goes live in November. It scales ideally. It’s cheap! It’s Wide like 24 lane highway. XRP could run on it (If they were smart). They always use Child Porn when they wanna break ya. They’re the only ones allowed to PRON! BTC is currency - Yay… Keep it that way. Transact with sats all ya want on BSV it’s just a cheap AF immutable pay rail. Immutable too P2P -

Skyler Byrden ⚡️BIP 110 ⚡️UASF 2mo ago

There’s more going on than you realize. Hashers can switch pools with a few clicks. No mining pool wants to be a pariah. If a mining pool lets the wrong jpeg slip in they’ll never recover.

Skyler Byrden ⚡️BIP 110 ⚡️UASF 2mo ago 💬 1

Contra 2mo ago 💬 1

Good try, but this is a category error. Fruit Loops has a definition. It’s a specific breakfast cereal made by Kellogg’s. Calling something else Fruit Loops when it’s literally soup would be false.

Spam isn’t a protocol property, it’s an opinion about use. This meme assumes there’s an objective definition of spam in Bitcoin. There isn’t. Show me the spam field in a transaction

Skyler Byrden ⚡️BIP 110 ⚡️UASF 2mo ago 💬 1

But they’re served in a bowl, you eat it with a spoon, it has a liquid base.

Any transaction that prioritizes data storage over value transfer is one definition.

Buying a bowl of soup with btc is a transfer of value.

Inscribing dickbutts is not.

Filtering inscriptions isn’t censorship because there’s no transfer of value to prevent.

You should ask Core about the spam filters they haven’t proposed removing. Why are you ok with those?

Contra 2mo ago 💬 1

The bowl and spoon don’t make it cereal. The ingredients do. You’re describing consumption, not definition.

According to your spam definition, who measures whether data storage is prioritized over value transfer? An inscription pays fees for block space. That IS value transfer to miners. If someone pays $50 for a dickbutt, they’re transferring $50 in value. You think it’s stupid. The economic transfer is real.

On existing filters, block size and script size are objective structural limits. They don’t judge transaction content or intent. This transaction is too big is measurable. This transaction has the wrong purpose requires human judgment.

Show me how to objectively measure data storage priority versus value transfer priority without judging intent. Priority is subjective. Bytes and fees are not.

Skyler Byrden ⚡️BIP 110 ⚡️UASF 2mo ago

You got part of that right. It is a category error. The difference between soup and cereal is the base. Soup is a cooked broth, cereal milk.

The spammers themselves define the spam. Inscriptions follow a protocol. Create or use a protocol for inscribing data, you’re prioritizing data. Doesn’t matter what the data is, that’s why it’s not censorship, it’s filtering spam. Different category

A miner isn’t a peer in a btc transaction. The fee paid doesn’t enter into the value transfer. Different category.

(I also take issue with miners the feel they own the block space and can fill it with whatever garbage they want for a quick buck leaving the nodes to shoulder the cost forever)

Convincing someone to pay $50 for a UTXO with an inscription is a transfer of value, but it has nothing to do with the transaction that inscribed it. That transaction prioritizes data storage. Ascribing value to the result after the fact is irrelevant.

It’s basically Bitcoin branded beanie babies. Shitcoin on Bitcoin. Nobody wants it. How do we stop it? Filter the inscriptions. How? Filter the protocol.

It’s not censorship. It’s spam filtering.

Different category.