Nostr Web Client

So it has nothing to do with venture capital funded projects wanting their transactions to be more freely relayed?

Probably not. They can just use Libre Relay like they do now.

So the fact that no one uses libre relay has no impact on how those transactions get distributed?

And probably not sounds like a good way to avoid the question.

Why are you talking to me like I was the one to make these decisions? I am simply saying why they were made. If you don't want to believe it then that's fine. You do you lol

Because you’re speaking as if you’re an authority on why the decisions were made, I proposed an alternative “why” and you dismiss it outright and become defensive, reflecting the exact issue with this entire discussion, neither side is being completely forthcoming.

LOL. I simply gathered the points I saw from core devs and others on places like delving bitcoin, stacker news, the github, irc, etc. I am just sharing. I am not an authority at all, which is why I spent time to actually go do research.

You literally said “this is why.”

I’m just suggesting there could be a different “why”.

But hey, like you said, you do you. Just hoping people that see your gathered points from one perspective maybe see an alternative point from a different perspective as well.

zapnode.io 3mo ago

Knots are rising 🌈

What and where is the source of this screenshot?

1. Outdated? Limits still protect most nodes. Removing them normalizes bloat.

2. Hurts decentralization? Heavy defaults increase node costs and reduce participation.

3. Free market? Markets don’t fix externalities spam at any fee still burdens every node.

4. Backfires? Fix stuffing exploits; don’t open the floodgates.

5. Miner alignment? Miners chase fees, not network health. Node defaults must protect users.

6. Simplification? Removing controls reduces sovereignty. Diversity of policy is a strength.

7. Reduce bloat? OP_RETURN is still bloating, consuming block space and bandwidth forever.

8. Low risk? High-fee spam is still spam. And larger OP_RETURN payloads increase the risk of contiguous contraband illegal data stored permanently on disk, forcing every node operator worldwide to bear legal and ethical liability.

1. Limits don't protect nodes. Data already flows over external relays, etc. The default just exclused public relay while the same or worse data gets mined anyway.

2. True for some kinds of bloat, but OP RETURN is provably unspendable (NO UTXO GROWTH), and bounded by block size. Bandwidth/storage costs are extremely minimal compared to alternatives like witness stuffing, fake utxos, which the current policy encourages.

3. Fees don't eliminate externalities, but they do price them fairly. At least with the open relay standard, everyone can compete on equal terms. Restrictive defaults give advantage to thos with private miner access, which is WORSE for decentralization.

4. Attempts to "fix" each workaround is whack-a-mole which is a waste of time. Hacky methods will always exist as long as op return is artificially constrained. Allowing a clean prunable channel is the simplest systemic fix.

5. True but defaults should reflect what is ALREADY BEING MINED. Otherwise, honest users get excluded from public relay while well connected actors bypass the rules. This hruts fairness and openness more than it helps "health"

6. Node sovereignty comes from the ability to run your own policy cod not from one-off knobs. In practice, fragmented relay settings harm network reliability. If sovereignty matters, operators can always patch their own node.

7. Block space is scarce, yes, but OP_RETURN is the least harmful way to carry metadata: prunable, no UTXO growth, and constrained by block size + fees. Forcing data elsewhere makes the bloat worse.

8. Illegal data risk exists regardless of OP_RETURN limits — people already embed arbitrary payloads in witness data. With OP_RETURN, the channel is at least identifiable and prunable. Suppression doesn’t prevent contraband, it just drives it to less visible corners of the blockchain.

ESE 3mo ago 💬 1

1. “Limits don’t protect nodes.” They do. Most nodes don’t use private relays. Defaults matter because they set the baseline. Removing them only increases bloat.

2. “OP_RETURN is better than hacks.” While it’s unspendable, it still bloats blocks constantly. This load is significant, not trivial, for every syncing node.

3. “Fees price externalities fairly.” Fees don’t eliminate externalities. Spam at any fee remains spam. Claiming miner access fairness fixes this misses that node operators cover the storage cost, not miners.

4. “Whack-a-mole.” Security always requires patching vulnerabilities. Opening the floodgates isn’t systemic risk management it’s surrender.

5. “Reflect what miners mine.” Miners follow incentives, not stewardship. Defaults should protect network health, not just confirm miner profit motives.

6. “Node sovereignty is patching your own code.” Sovereignty starts with safe defaults. Few can patch Core themselves. Knobs give real operators genuine choices.

7. “Least harmful metadata carrier.” Least harmful doesn’t mean harmless. Every byte is stored permanently. Labeling it prunable hides the enduring disk, bandwidth, and liability impact.

8. “Contraband exists elsewhere too.” True, but larger OP_RETURN makes it easier to inject contiguous illegal payloads. At least with limits, the attack surface is reduced.

Now you're talking in circles..later dude

Suppose i'll have my popcorn ready when we learn if this is real or not.

I fully agree on that; there is only one way to know, and it won't be long.

zapnode.io 3mo ago

Zapnode.io is running only knots, we are very real.

ESE 3mo ago 💬 1

The core issue isn’t whether data can leak in through hacks; it already does. The problem is whether Bitcoin should normalize that bloat by default. Conservative policies protect node operators from carrying unnecessary risk, legal liability, and rising costs. Defaults matter because they set the baseline for decentralization.