I just know on our side we have very smart developers of 15+ years, and people who care deeply about decentralization, incentives, and censorship resistance. On the knotz side you get a bunch of podcasters, social media campaigners and liars. History will be the judge!
Discussion
Let me start by saying I couldn’t care less about core ppl or knots ppl, like most the only thing I care about is btc as a monetary network.
It also saddens me that I referenced to you concrete actions and your come back was very much “trust the experts who have 15+ history of good faith, instead of the one guy coder and a bunch of podcasters”. Is your argument so weak you cannot comment on the concrete actions that have been taken, and must recur to discredit the adversary and call your past authority?
Even if open up op_return is the correct thing, the huge error that core did was forcing it to ppl and taking away the choice to configure their node as they like. This is the crux of the matter: it’s not about the what, is about the how. And if the how is wrong it can only leads to misery down the road.
Like you said history will be the judge, peace and love
You seem to be ignoring the fact that this setting doesn’t do anything you want it to do (filter non monetary transactions). It at most temporarily delays your node from receiving and relaying these txs.
so, it isn't helpful that it prioritises actual monetary use of the chain?
every new block brings the possibility that any transaction will go further back in the queue, because people who want their monetary transactions prioritised, they raise their fee rates and non-monetary transactions then get pushed back (along with all low fee transactions). this is turning the tables because recent history has been that nonmonetary transactions have caused massive spikes in fee rates. with filters on, this is now suffered more by spammers.
you really don't seem to get that delaying spam is still better than doing nothing.
also, like way too many people, you don't understand that the p2p network is a loose consensus as well, and if you aren't participating in defining it, you are allowing those who are more determined to dictate the p2p network traffic patterns.
saying that you shouldn't use a filter because it doesn't *completely* stop spam is like saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt when driving a racing car because it doesn't *completely* stop you dying in a crash. this is absurd. of course you can't *completely* stop anything bad. but you can slow it down, you can make it more expensive, and you can just not take away user's ability to set policies that do this.
There are non-technical reasons to run Knots:
- How this was handled by the core team
- Todd, “For the record, this pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return, due to the size limits.”
- Lopp, an investor in Citrea who apparently want to use a nerfed OP_RETURN
Even if well intentioned, the above make it a no-go. And having concerns dismissed or talking down to the dummies? Doubly so.
What else can a pleb do in protest than run Knots?
Ok, I openly agree with you that filters are useless and don’t achieve anything.
Now, do you agree with me that forcing a change and taking away options from node runners (even if is the right technical thing to do) is not the correct method of action?
Do you agree with me that opening up op_return limit is not a very impactful action to help fix the minining centralizatio issue, while stratum v2 has a much stronger impact in fixing the mining centralization issue?
These are the questions that “knots” ppl have, who care about spams that much
> Now, do you agree with me that forcing a change and taking away options from node runners (even if is the right technical thing to do) is not the correct method of action?
No i don’t agree with this. removing dead code that doesn’t actually do the intended thing is good software engineering practice. I am a software engineer of ~27 years, but i guess knots people would discount this because they believe experts don’t actually know anything(??)
I think mining centralization would be much worse if people went around the p2p network for tx submission, so i guess i also disagree with your last point as well.
I think we finally found where we fundamentally diverge! And here I don’t think there is any point in discussing any further, we simply have different opinions
Thanks for taking the time to engage with me man, really appreciate it. More discussion is simply what I wanted, not to persuade or attack anyone
Cheers and if you got any more questions shorts away, peace and love
You’re not listening. It’s about who chooses. Node runners choose. Collectively that’s called consensus. The fact that Core pushes a change unilaterally while only one degree removed is a huge risk. Luckily this was just a case of don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. And Core fixed it anyway. But what if they had paid them to undermine something severe.
Peter Todd was paid for this PR.
True Story
Also core devs were telling node runners “if you don’t pay you have no say”
Core lost the plot.
Their proponents are just thinking from a technical aspect and can’t see the big picture. Even when it’s “Mate in 2”
Judjing from core ppl counter-argument I also agree that core devs have simply lost it to excessive hubris/power tripping (which I don't know if it's better than having been corrupted....).
Another thing: I'm sure not all core devs are like this, but the ones who have been put "in the front" to publicly discuss core views on this issue are not amazing at engaging with ppl and carry out emotionally mature discussions....you can be a genius at coding and totally shit in other aspects (like communication and inter-relationship)
I gathered you also followed the whole convo I had with jb55, I honestly thought there was no point in continuing the discussion if he believes that forcing a change is the correct course of action (in bitcoin, where it's all about no trusting the experts and freedom of choice, allegedly).
I was hoping that he would at least recognise stratum V2 as a massive step in the right direction in fixin minining centralization issue, but alas 😟
V2 clearly is a more important step than relaxing some policy rule, which is also why Core 30 will ship a new mining interface intended to be used with v2.
This “us and them” is intellectually lazy. It’s a base human instinct to “other” people so we can dismiss them, or worse… We *all* should try harder in this debate to understand each other. Typing in to glass rectangles is not conducive to that, though. Maybe the vlog crowd are on to something.