Nostr Web Client

we'll you're hearing my side. I am a bitcoin core contributor. there aren't many of us. we are outnumbered millions to a couple dozen at most ?

you will naturally mostly hear the crowd when we are this outnumbered.

I think there is a valid counter argument: I have yet to see anyone point out why the setting matters when you can get around it via witness data (like how inscriptions abused the network)

unrestricted OP_RETURN is strictly better since those are provably unspendable, meaning you don't need to permanently bloat the utxo set. if people are going to do it anyway and you can't stop it without a hardfork, then removing the restriction so people don't do dumber things that hurt the network even more is better is it not?

twofish 8mo ago

Yeah, as stayed after core sat on their hands in 2023 when all this started. The proposal that was 'contentious' was to address the spam with a spam filter.

Their like lala I'm not listening. And then:

Since we can't filter 100% of spam, our only action is to just lower the drawbridge and let it all in. It's fine because now they aren't trying to climb the castle walls anymore.

And I expected the response to that be more: lala we can't stop all spam.

Can you even refute Bitcoin Mechanics central point?

Like, rewind back to 2023 when the problem started.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jb55 8mo ago

i don’t know his central point, is it written somewhere?

twofish 8mo ago

I mean, there is probably a transcription in the video, but my understanding is that spam filters do work sufficiently (without a hardfork) if core would accept the pull request of the spam filter. It doesn't catch everything, but it creates an environment where only the most sophisticated spammers can get through. The fact that this option is being ignored, and then stating because we can't stop it we must do x, is an attack on bitcoin. It's a form of gas lighting by disregarding solutions that address the spam directly. He addresses what I think is core's central point: The proposed spam filter won't stop x so we won't merge it (back in 2023). Mechanic relates it to essentially x being at the tail end of a normal distribution, meaning it doesn't work 100% of the time. Now fast forward to now and the proposed change by core is: Because we can't stop the spam then why should we have one. Which can be rephrased to: Because we can't stop 100% of the spam then why should we have one.

It's the fallacy of composition and division: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/fallacy-of-composition-and-division.html

Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15biQH1H140

jb55 8mo ago

wasn’t this point ultimately proven wrong once the inscribers ended up burning all their bitcoin? and a catch and mouse game with spammers was ultimately a waste of time ? We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxoset, shouldn’t we encourage people to use that instead of retarded stuff like witness data ? Since you can’t stop people from doing consensus compatible retarded things? At least that was my recollection… it’s been awhile.

twofish 8mo ago

Let's start with the premise that this is a cat and mouse game. I don't think it is, but sure let's have it.

- Whose time are we wasting exactly? Like, be as specific as you can.

Next: We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxo set.

- Block size is only one dimension. What about bandwidth?

If you fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you end up with the conclusion that we must let them put the data in op return because it's better than the data being shoved into the witness data (bandwidth + CPU time).

If you don't fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you have to go back a step, and proceed forward with your logic.

Tauri 8mo ago

They burned their Bitcoin but their shit remained stored on users nodes for all eternity and they have to be downloaded by anyone doing an IBD one by one. This is all result from lenient treatment of arbitrary data and not fixing the filters when node runners sounded the alarm.