Look knot is censorship if people want to pay let them pay
Discussion
You're good at turning a blind eye. Don't get too good at it or you'll end up with two!
I am telling the truth. Knots make difficult to some messages go into the bitcoin network blockchain timechain
That truth you're telling is "knots makes it difficult to get non monetary messages onto the blockhain", which is precisely the point.
except its not true
Thanks
Arguing with someone who wants to turn bitcoin into a multi function, feature rich, message relaying, data storage application is kinda like arguing with a drunk person. You entertain it for a while but eventually realise there is no point.
noone wants that, such a dumb straw man
Strawman in reference to which post? You better be clear on that one. Or shall we go back to your "campaign of lies"? No straw there.
noone on the core or knots side wants to make it easier to store data in bitcoin. core just doesn't agree that what knots is doing is effective.
So how is Core forcing 100kvB for OP_RETURN not an incentive for Bitcoin to become a data storage application for non monetary uses? Why is it not an option for node runners to chose? (which is exactly what Knots IS). And let's step back from that and return to your final; Core just doesn't think Knots is effective, statement. Is that your position? I mean seriously. Tell us what you really think. What is Bitcoin to you? What do you want it to be?
because inscriptions are already 4x cheaper for that purpose
also filters don't stop these anyways
So why change the code? You’re not coherent.
because it's actively harmful to the network
Your response is what one calls a platitude….how is not making these changes harmful to the code?
I have a highlight on my feed that explains this
What I see in your feed is incoherent to me. Explain it to me like I’m a 5-year old.
sipa and others have already explained it in detail on stack overflow. I am frankly tired of explaining it. go there to learn why the change was made
That’s what I though. #Knots.
i forgot knots people don't do their own research, they just consumed regurgitated nonsense from podcasters
Im trying to hear your side. But all I get are platitudes and ad hominem.
I think this sums it up well:
There’s a company that has a Bitcoin utility use case (not pics or vids) that can’t use cheaper witness data for some reason, and won’t fit in the 80 byte filtered OP_RETURN limit, and they really want to use the P2P network of nodes because their data is time-sensitive and they want to get it to as many miners as possible as fast as possible.
So they are creating transactions that are technically valid with unspendable outputs because there’s no filter on that. But it means every node must carry all these unspendable UTXOs forever, which is bloaty and not nice.
Whether you agree with this company or not, they found a way to do what they want to do while getting around current filters and they probably won’t be the last ones to do so.
The hope is that this company or others that come along later with similar ambitions would use a bigger OP_RETURN instead, if that were an option.
It is also possible that someone will come up with a use case for bigger OP_RETURN data that is less time sensitive. If lots of nodes are filtering those transactions they could go around the mempool and submit to large miners directly. IF this got valuable enough it could put smaller miners at a disadvantage to bigger miners in fees.
If someone just wants to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin, it already costs much less to put it in witness data, so “spamming” OP_RETURN doesn’t make a lot of sense and if you REALLY want to, its technically valid right now anyway.
Firstly, thanks for the civilized answer. Here is my counterpoint: Because the spammers go around a back door we just make it easier for them opening OP_Return? It’s a flawed argument. Why don’t you work on closing the back doors? And frankly, I don’t care about miner’s profits. I’m running Knots and a solo miner. Just as Satoshi-San intended. Pure and simple. #Bitcoin is Money. Nothing more nothing less.
Closing back doors just builds taller walls, spammers bring ladders. Meanwhile, artists bring color. Ever tried painting with sats? It’s purer than any argument.
You’re welcome. Emotions seem to be running high on all sides over what seems to me to be a relatively small and technical change.
The back door is in the Bitcoin consensus rules, not node transaction filters, so changing that is more involved.
You’re right that it would make it a little easier to add spam into OP_RETURN without filters, but this back door is fairly inconsequential compared to the giant cathedral-sized front door: witness data.
And even if 100% of nodes had filters on, if someone really wants to put more data in OP_RETURN, they will go straight to a miner because it is valid in consensus. Here, you can do it right now if you want: https://slipstream.mara.com
The question isn’t whether or not to let spam in Bitcoin, that ship has sailed. A lot of people don’t want to accept it, and I don’t like it either, but this particular node filter doesn’t move the spam needle much in either direction. People are standing in front of a mountain and fighting over a molehill. (And getting pretty nasty about it)
The real question is whether it’s worse to make it slightly easier to put spam in block space that costs them 4x as much as where they normally put it, or let the UTXO set bloat with unspendable transactions that we’ll need to keep track of forever?
Personally, I think bloat is worse but not an existential threat either way.
Run Knots, run core, it’s all good. More nodes is better.
Are you suggesting something like "hey, if non-monetary data happens to be stored on chain forever, it is what it is, spam filters were never going to stop it anyway", with that comment?
It’s really the case. You can’t use censorship in the bitcoin timechain. Knots is failed from the begging
So complacencey is your response? Bitcoin was not invented or adopted with such lack of spirit.
there is no air in the room for these discussions. knots people just want to shit on core instead of discussing actual solutions
Ending Core is the only solution
Well that's just not true at all. There are now hours of discussions. You know this. The "shit" is here because Core devs responded with "shut up, you're not a coder so you know nothing" and/or "we don't have a good reason why we're messing with stuff that creates problems for bitcoin, and, we don't care either". So yeah, the air is gone and now it's matter of calling out bad actors.