Founder of F2Pool. Thanks for this.
Discussion
Matt, you know the default setting can be changed in the configuration file.
Are you suggesting you and Samourai should be able to dictate how node runners set up their node’s configuration file?
Don’t you want a diversity of nodes with individual node runners voting with their hardware and the settings they opt into or out of?
Just like the size of the mempool you choose to hodl is configurable l, so is this.
Samourai has shown their true colors time and time again.
Too bad.
Breaking a massive wallet privacy tool for no reason is silly.
They are welcome to do so, but dumb.
F2pool acting at the hand of government is just as bad. Against, they are free to do so.
Personally, I pulled my few PH from them and moved to 2 different pools. Ocean won't be getting it either.
> Breaking a massive wallet privacy tool
What are you talking about? If one block in 100 does not include their transactions, it's not breaking their tool.
By what metric is it "massive"?
For now. They could start winning 1 out of 10, 1 out of 5, who knows.
Whirlpool is one of, if not the best forward privacy tool that exists. It currently has usage in the pool of almost 2x the entire lightning network capacity.
That’s massive, and growing.
Literally nothing was broken🙄
This is not about samourai.
It's a slippery slope. All eyes are on you guys because of the amount of hype you made around the launch.
If you care about actually mitigating mining centralization concerns then surely the answer isn't let's have luke unilaterally decide what is spam.
I’m going to stop man. You have helped me so much over the years. I don’t like being on opposite sides of the issue. I’m sorry.
The solution to miner centralization is not one pool that does it right, so all can mine at that pool. It's more pools and ideally also ones that do it right.
In my book, any pool that has low switching cost is great as it allows miners to direct their hashes at a different pool quickly should problems arise. If banning wizard pics and the associated lower rewards is not perceived as a problem, let them mine at OCEAN.
More pools isn't enough. Each and every miner needs to be deciding for himself.
Until OCEAN, miners had no choices. Now they have one more. Soon, we'll release the flood gates so they have infinite possibilities
"Each and every miner" will never be on board to stop censorship. I guess, censorship will be state-sponsored and many registered mining pools will take this extra money happily.
It only takes one miner to include your transaction
With centralization, you have to convince one of a mere 11 pools
nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk You rock. Great example of a perseverance, strength, courage of a builder that changes the world. Ignore naysayers, haters that distract and stall progress (shipping and opening up new possibilites).
Why have any limit on OP_RETURN? I want to upload ripped DVDs. 80MB'ers are censoring me
This is all nonsense.
The people who have OFAC-sanctioned addresses will create new addresses.
Luke’s pool will leave money on the table and miners will choose a pool that earns them more sats.
#Bitcoin fixes this
Free markets will solve this. Socialist will get rekt.
I respect very much you ODELL, but it seems that Luke is right at this time.
But ser, are we in a bear market? No caps?
80 bytes is the standard
there is no "standard". it's literally a configurable setting. there is a default in core which is 80. and there is a default in knots which is 40. in both cases the user can set whatever they like.
Per nostr:npub1x458tl7h9xcxa66vr4a8pg0h2qz96pnhwnfpcra0le9090uk5t5qw7armt : Core… has had 80 byte OP_RETURN for nearly a decade now. 85%+ miners have been set to 80 bytes for the same amount of time. Read the commit log. Read the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h
It's a configurable value with a default! Look at the code. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
That's called centralization, and is exactly what OCEAN exists to combat
Riiiiight… so you are calling a decade of voluntary consensus among miners and the current functionality of Bitcoin core “centralization” (which it isn’t, why don’t you look up that definition in the dictionary), yet intentionally ignoring that consensus so you can censor whirlpool/paynym transactions and effectively attack Bitcoin Core, while pretending you are doing something positive for Bitcoin…
Nobody who actually digs into the details believes your lies. The normies might swallow your omissions and trust you just because @jack somehow doesn’t realize you’re using a custom fork to try and attack Bitcoin core… but we all know you’re full of 💩 and your Ocean pool will die a slow death. You are worse than the ordinals idiots, and you need to look in the mirror and recognize that you need to do better, and be better. Be a man, stop lying, admit you were wrong, get your shit together and use Bitcoin core, and actually do something good, like you claimed you would.
This is just getting embarassing now, honestly. You guys are making a fool out of yourselves, comparing a configurable setting with censorship.
Can everyone stop censoring my 100 byte op_return tx please?