I know nothing about bip 444
I believe bitcoin should be a monetary network
Not dick pics on the time chain
But I also believe in freedom
And if people wanna do dick butts on there that’s kinda up to them
Was hoping the market would sort this out by now
Not sure which side I’m on
Omg
When you don’t have the ability to censor things you don’t want then you don’t have freedom at all
Idk mixed feelings
Because I agree with you but the flip side of that coin
Is
There should not be any censorship
It’s supposed to be censorship resistant remember
Bitcoin is censorship-resistant MONEY,
NOT a censorship-resistant MULTI-PURPOSE PROTOCOL.
This is exactly why we don't want large miners to have an unfair advantage over small miners...
Yes, but if it is the justification for 1200X the OP_RETURN size — a change the community found contentious and that Core pushed through with a heavy hand, sounds weak.
The extra revenue from Slipstream is marginal.
adds, what, a 1% edge at best? Block rewards still make up the overwhelming majority of miner income.
No one is changing the Op_return size allowed on chain, they are bringing mempool in line with what's aleady allowed on chain.
Mining is a cut throat business with ultra thin margins, 1% is huge, which is why miners are running parallel transaction markets for transactions that mempool doesn't relay.
Sorry, the one before was a wrong paste 🤦♂️
It wouldn't be censorship... censorship is when you would normally have the right to say something (for example printing "it's good to be white" on your owned newspaper) and someone else violently prevents you from doing that (for example the government threatening you with jail time).
When you reject a transaction from your own node, it is called discrimination, and it's very healthy. Like discriminating ugly women from being your girlfriend, or communists from being your friends.
Um
Maybe I use the wrong word
Im not good in English
But you get what I mean
BIP 444 (haven’t read it yet so talking philosophically) as I understand its purpose is not about censoring people. As a monetary network it’s a censorship resistant protocol already and would remain so. But it just means it is not to be used as file storage.
Want file storage? Use Nostr. Want time locked auth verified file storage use a Nostr+BTC mix within the BIP444 constraints. Want transactions, use bitcoin. You’re free still. Just bitcoin has potential harm it’s obligated to protect itself from by not being file storage for any purposes because degens show up eventually.
In nature, it is like saying trees are great, they grow all over and have so many fantastic benefits but as trees they don’t seem to serve all purposes for all people. So we think they need to grow in the shape of whatever people want them to so people don’t have to hire a carpenter. And the trees are all, “🖕”.
Why are you talkong about something you haven't even read...
Understsnd the problem that Core is trying to solve and come up with something better, or go home.
Just joined a conversation about the overarching topic regardless of the nuance of BIP444. My presumption is that it has a pretty limited scope to address the OP_RETURN debate which has been ongoing.
You are the market. It’s a race for excellence, not a race to the bottom.
In my view, the market kinda had sorted this out: For the most part, it seemed like node-runners didn't really care about the amount of their resources being used for dick pics, etc. - with the exception of a few spikes in network fees that have all but disappeared. They ran the default reference implementation without having to worry about specific settings all that much. All was well.
With Core v30 changing those default settings, it is not yet known what the consequences will be. Most node-runners - who weren't all that concerned about specific setting before - probably don't notice when they have been changed from one version to the next. If a consequence of these changes is a return to higher, possibly sustained, network fees, these changes will have had the effect of (at least temporarily) distorting that market that seemed to have already been sorted out.
Personally, I would be interested in exploring the possibility of a consensus change to hard limit all such arbitrary data back to what had previously been widely considered 'standard'. I am not so much interested in any 'emergency' fork that may start retroactively reorganizing any part of the blockchain based on someone's 🤷 subjective interpretation of the law of some indeterminate jurisdiction 🤷.
