I have been very anti paternalistic filtering since the very early days of bitcoin, which is why i’m probably so anti knots since they want to add more filters not less.
Discussion
I understand there's a need to relax the data carrier limits for new use cases but opening it up to the max block size seems like an overshoot. I want to retain the optionality, though I understand that, after block confirmation, my node will end up storing the data that guys like yourself relayed to the miners. It's a catch 22.
its just relaxing the filters to what is actually reflected in the protocol rules. The more divergence between relay policy and consensus rules and economic activity, the less accurate your node is when doing fee estimation.
> its just relaxing the filters to what is actually reflected in the protocol rules.
Which is the max block size.
> the less accurate your node is when doing fee estimation.
I never had a substantial discrepancy in fee estimates.
I don't think there are many new attack vectors introduced by these changes but still, as good practice, no upgrading to newer versions before they have been out for a prolonged time.
It surely will lead to a cleaner code, that I agree.
yes max block size, something you can relay today on libre relay and get it in into a block with 0 issues. its not done because its undiscounted and non-economical. people would use witness space for this instead.
In essence, it's not done because the propagation path is scarce. The more widespread Libre Relay nodes are, the more reliable and censorship-resistant the OP_RETURN data storage becomes in the Bitcoin blockchain. At 1%, it's niche and fragile; at 20%, it starts to significantly improve reach.
unfortunately this is not true. you get 100% deliverability with about 5 nodes
Only if they know a miner running liver relay and have him in their peer; oherwise, it seems not plausible.
miners do run with very few filters, because they are economically motivated to do so
Given that Inscription based fees represent only a negligible (~0.1%) addition to miner profits after hashrate and cost adjustments, and with added risk of transmitting illicit material, miners might be more careful in accepting 4MB files for confirmation, don't you think?
are you asking if miners are going to start widespread censoring of valid transactions in bitcoin? i doubt it. even if one did another wouldn't. otherwise bitcoin wouldn't be censorship resistant.
No, they can easily not update to v30 or not run libre relay, but instead continue running v29 with their data carrier preferences and still be within protocol rules. They would thus be exercising their choice. If more become aware of this, the propagation path would remain niche and limited. It's their choice to make. Looking forward to seeing how this unravels.
you can't stop economically motivated actors from getting around it. its not hard to run libre relay over core or knots.
This is like claiming there's no risk/reward. For negligent upside and exceeding risks, they might choose not to. If most chooses not to, the propagation path remains limited, as currently. These are just possible scenarios, you might be correct to bet on human greed.
One does nit have to call it greed. But it is the best bet, that a majority is intrested in a working businessmodel. And inclusive businessmodels offer more opportunity than exclusive ones.
Given below is a try at unbiased assessment of the perspectives from both sides. A nuanced approach is key here, no need to attack and belittle each other.
nostr:naddr1qqxnzde4xcurqv3e8yunvdfsqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnp0faxzmt09ehx2ap0qgs9zs7rw003k4y2wltea360yuj46y5md9d4yt0mt06rfx96fdgpm7grqsqqqa28m608ea
I am kind of mix feeling , though I never contribute to core dev due to my limited knowledge , I knew spam is annoying and having filter seems such a great idea . 💡 dilemma : to filter or not to filter