I believe this last part is what most people miss about this debate. I don,t care about default i care about options. So core's plan to depreaciate the option is what rubbed me the wrong way. I believe this is where the rubber meets the road to alternatives. Good to see core contributers starting to realise this.

Pieter Wuille: "Both these concerns are also an assumption by the developers that this is what majority of users will choose to do but that's not a practical conclusion. Specially if the configuration is completely taken away from users. Hypothetically speaking if majority of users choose to change defaults or switch to using more user-friendly node client like Knots then the same argument can be made i.e. the minority not in-sync with majority will have bad fee estimation(if mempool-based) and miners trying to mine more arb-data/spam txs will have higher risk of stale blocks. So, the idea of changing-defaults-radically or deprecating or marking as to-be deprecated is not grounded in solid engineering foundation for a decentralized network where the information and decision-making should be diffused as much as possible instead of basing it on assumptions made by unfounded and theoretical calculations by developers."

I get serious central planning vibes from this, and the core dev supporters in general. They think they know what node runners want and what motivates them better then they (node runners) do themselves.

You all should brush up on Austrian Economics, especially Human Action. People have all kinds of motivations that can't all be accounted for by central planners. The incentive for miners is obvious, reward and fees, but not so for node runners. Also Economics In One Lesson since this is a classic seen vs unseen problem. Core sees the use of OoB payments and can point that out, but what is unseen is all the nonsense the existing (and reasonable imo) limit prevents.

There is also a problem with his use of the term "censorship". There are two distinct usages of the term here. One is censoring economic activity, like blocking a tx for political reasons. Every bitcoiner is against this. There is also the "censoring" of arbitrary, non-monetary data. This is what is in question. Wuille and other supporters conflate the two, lumping them together, which makes for an easy straw man target, but is not accurate because filtering spam does not in any way impede the monetary use case of Bitcoin i.e. p2p electronic cash.

It's a very weak explanation for this bizarre radical change. It has factual errors also.

It is NOT POSSIBLE to change the OP_RETURN limit back to how it is in v29.

The way they lazily changed it with the expectation it would be deprecated essentially broke how it used work.

It's now the limit per output or something.

Regardless the limit will NOT WORK as before. It will be more than 83.

1) on one side he states that non-monetary txs are a passing thing and will fade out as they are not economically sound/competitive, on the other hand he says that if these kind of txs made “out-of-band” end up becoming economically relevant they might exacerbate the mining centralization problem. Seems contradictory to me, can’t say they will fade out but at the same time say they can become economically relevant and exacerbate problems

2) like many, he approaches mining centralization from a “negotiating the least possible harm right now” rather than exploring way to actually fight it (for example stratum v2). Personally this is something I noticed a lot, namely a big concern for miners, their fees, how to limit the harm they might do now. But this is done from a position of acceptance that they are the bully and we need to work around them. Miners are super short term oriented, they will do anything to get a dollar today without caring about tomorrow. I don’t like where the focus is directed, working on better solution to actually contain them (stratum v2) is the way. If you take for granted the present situation and think only how to contain it, you will not direct your focus on finding solutions to actually change it for the better. This is why I don’t like all this acceptance of mining centralization and how we should negotiate with miners, and this op_return seems to be based very much on this way of thinking

Good point

Matt Blue hair posted this link also.

It must be part of the spam proponents strategy.

So a stack exchange post is going to turn it around and people will accept insane defaults to allow a flood of spam?

Don't think so.

Bitcoin Magazine turned into Shitcoin Magazine and the shitcoin magazine employees work hand in hand with Core also.

I think it really reflects poorly on Core when you have blatant shitcoiners like Loop, Wall, Rijndael in their circle as if they're legit.

Face it, Bitcoin Core has been captured by shitcoin spam interests. And Core in turn act like they alone are entitled to control its direction

Really like Andrey Arapovs answer below - the trade-off regarding negative impacts of miner centralization, block propagation and fee estimates vs the legal attack vector of running an unmoderated file relay don‘t really add up to Core‘s conclusion. Really enjoyed your book though ;-)

The change in v30 is a very symbolic capitulation to shitcoins and spam. Now, VCs will be more likely to invest in these non-monetary protocols as Bitcoin has given up all resistance. Before, building on Bitcoin was shaky grounds for on chain rock pictures. Now it's open season. The investment proposition just got more solid.

it would be nice to see the mempool empty of JPEGs only because it is pushed aside by real transaction. filtering transactions by [insert metric here] is a never ending debate that will lead nowhere. it is actually an implicit admission that bitcoin has failed as a payment network.

let the mempool flow, it is a stress test that is needed, if you ever expect bitcoin to be the global settlement network, you should expect a UTXO set 100x larger, full blocks and a huge mempool.

it is very important to know whether people should continue to hold bitcoin or buy a farm instead.

I am in favour that everyone just use which convenient for them . The system is not the only thing that user considered. Sometimes the fee is also considered .

Security and more filter to spam

Is somehow good for user .

Open source in the other hands , giving more flexibility and yet sometime a bit vulnerable .

Based. It’s based

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpyq49dlcmlaul3rz7hqz7y30wt3m4evvevzegvfk0cneqgzw2aqpqyt8wumn8ghj76rfwd6zumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqs0x6hee4qulk0qkt3vaenxlsy46aehey6stcf874yjs4xn7frxk2g9tc0vz

Kinda weird that core thinks they know what small miners need more than the small miners themselves. The loudest opponents to the change are some of the small miners they purport to represent.

The rationale continues to be, "Spam has always been possible, so let's make it easier and less expensive because I personally think it's better this way. I also hope the negative consequences magically go away in the future." This wasn't a convincing argument a few months ago, and it still isn't. Do better.

"You must have 50 reputation to comment" "Thanks for the feedback! You need at least 125 reputation to cast a vote, but your feedback has been recorded."

"consensus rules" + "ultimate reinforcement" in nutshell

#humour #bitcoin

i dont like there “its just a hype” not like this thing as been around since ever i think he down playing the threat but also shared “default change” so it become your choice to enforce the rule. Somewhat ok but that just odd