Wouldnβt they be more likely to come to you for your node because of the CSAM on it?
Discussion
Just search up Loppβs investment interest in Citrea.
Its All that needs to be said.
Heβs a sellout pos spam profiteer
Iβve seen that. Lopp seems to have been in bitcoin for a while and I thought he would be pretty well off financially and not need to sellout. At least I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but he hardly responds to me π€·ββοΈ
Me too man but you never know what kind of financial situation hes in.
In Tomers words:
You guys are hilarious π
My Citrea investment is a rounding error and I don't reinvest into the ecosystem with the expectation of outperforming the BTC I have to part with in order to do so.
You don't deny you are an investor in Citrea that started all this shit and the claim about returns are pure BS.
You support the change that when done on BSV resulted in CSAM.
You support the shitcoiners that damage Bitcoin even at the moment with their spam.
Bad actor.
this narrative is not correct. lifting the placebo filter doesn't allow large OP_RETURNs to suddenly start happening. we are not sitting around anxiously waiting for core to push the big evil button, after which it will be possible for the first time. it already happened.
the largest OP_RETURN on bitcoin happened 298 days ago and it was 79,870 bytes, which is over 7 times bigger than your profile picture. it appears to have been submitted to slipstream, meaning someone told it directly to a miner and bypassed the mempool completely. the filter didn't work. it looks like it was a runestone, so it's probably a picture. if you don't have pruning enabled, it's on your computer right now.
and you seem totally lost about what citrea even does. its sequencer posts zero knowledge proofs onto bitcoin of transactions that happened on a separate blockchain. it does not post the transactions themselves. this is a GOOD thing if you don't want people doing ethereum-type stuff directly inside the bitcoin blockchain.
Now check the percentage of all OP_RETURNs that are less than 83 Bytes and the ones with more.
I don't think that's true either. I don't agree with your root cause analysis or your bogeyman selection. it became normalized to tell transactions directly to miners when blocks first started being full. this is what opened up the can of worms with nonstandard-but-valid transactions becoming more common than they were before. if you still want to blame core for something, you can blame them for this.
sorry, you're wrong again. mara slipstream is currently in operation and can be accessed here:
here is an example of a nonstandard transaction that they included recently. it was never in the mempool.
https://mempool.space/tx/22d920c4ef593fb107857be1991e5ee42ec4b2210a53f3721a138732999ec7a8
The haven't stopped their Slipstream.
They have stopped accepting transactions with sub 1 sat per vB fees because of the nodes policies ...
and these node policies deter slipstream from including some types of nonstandardness but not others because?
deter mass abuse
I mean if I ran this kind of thing I'd want extra on top of the going rate just because it's custom and costs extra to operate
Cheer a little bit, its funny I promise πππ€£
Why reinvest if youβre just better off holding bitcoin? Genuinely curious
Because I want to reinvest into building out the Bitcoin ecosystem. I see it as a different way of putting my capital to work.
My angel investments may mostly go to zero but I expect that they will result in a fair amount of research and development. That's what I'm really investing in.
Even failures are helpful learning lessons for future innovators.
What do you think is the biggest risk to the bitcoin with people switching around between core and knots? Chain split?
Nah. The biggest risk is that Knots has vulnerabilities because it's not reviewed with the same scrutiny as Core. But in general it's a nothingburger.
Do you think that if more eyes gravitate toward knots that it would actually be worse for knots and core because now that scrutiny is being divided up?
Theoretically possible but highly unlikely IMO. Luke has long been a lonely island in the protocol developer community.
Because hes a fucking liar.
Actions>words
Nope, that's not a thing. Multiple large companies in this space got opinions from legal counsel to that effect.
Nobody cares if a shitcoin is going to be legal.
Bitcoin is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Freedom Money and Greatest Store of Value.
And you and your shitcoiners friends are not going to turn Bitcoin into a shitcoin.
What did the legal counsel say?
Legal counsel has advised that illicit content in a public blockchain is not an issue so long as you aren't accessing the data and transforming it to be displayed in a human readable format.
premium shitcoin huckster and top-tier loser arguing for csam onchain cuz "advised by legal counsel" its all good as ling as you "dont access" the data and "transform it"
wow.