Nostr Web Client

And there is no way to get there but a think of the children?

It is an argument designed to destroy rational thought about the problem. Literally 101 how to make the other person reactionary instead of reasoning. It also makes you reactionary instead of reasoning.

There is a problem to solve, let's both of us turn off half our brains and devolve into ideological demagogues. That always helps.

> And there is no way to get there but a think of the children?

It is a fast way there, and efficiency is very usefl

> It is an argument designed to destroy rational thought

Rather, it is an argument to focus it

I can't tell by the level of discourse here by you and others that it definitely has not done anything to improve the technical quality of the discourse.

Not one answer for the fact that I keep posting that knots real solution is that they are making Cloudflare scanning a defacto part of Bitcoin by insisting on a solution that makes all large op_returns MARA and trusting their scanning slipstream submissions. (I'll admit I don't know for sure who they are using but the principle is the same about trusting a 3rd party black box especially proven by us not even knowing whose closed source solution they use)

Not one answer when I posted about how ocean, datum, and knots are the best way to put CSAM on chain before core 30.

Even you who I used to respect for quality technical posting about lightning are posting a multi day emotional blast without any technicals.

We all need to do better and be better. Help me start us down that path instead of being a part of the problem.

> Not one answer for the fact that I keep posting that knots real solution is that they are making Cloudflare scanning a defacto part of Bitcoin by insisting on a solution that makes all large op_returns MARA and trusting their scanning slipstream submissions

The knots solution does not make *any* large op_returns MARA

The knots solution simply filters large op_returns from your own mempool

If a spammer therefore submits the large op_return to MARA that is not knots' fault, and if MARA mines it, that too is not knots' fault

> ocean, datum, and knots are the best way to put CSAM on chain before core 30

How so? I am not familiar with this claim

nostr:nevent1qqs2u28d99g50jn3nwk3zk4r04kl5qhep7avgmrcxjajl9pdfs4gf7spz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejz7q3qqyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqxpqqqqqqztr2qua

Slipstream is a path right around knots. Knots has 0 ability to keep CSAM out of the chain. That means what knots is really counting on to keep CSAM off chain is whatever screening method MARA uses for slipstream.

The mempool only thing is a dodge to avoid facing the real problem. If it gets on chain by any path every node has to serve that block from that day to the end of bitcoin. Mempool is not a real solution to the real risk.

I am the only one I have seen put together this claim. Here it is.

I like how you are still dancing around the topic, refusing to address it. Pathetic human being.

What dancing? My entire argument is that knots humpers need to knock of their victory lap because they have not solved the problem.

Your knots node is gonna serve the same CSAM block content as core for all eternity. Somehow I'm the pathetic human being for wanting that fixed instead of joining the cult? Fuck all the way off.

What's this solution you suddenly have that's better than the option to use filters?

You never mentioned anything of the sort before. You're so full of shit.

And this argument was about mempool policy. You're not even worth talking to with how you evade.

You are evading the very real issue of serving block content by bragging about your mempool. A transient problem with a bandaid but a permanent problem remains.

Maybe you should have read what I wrote in this thread at least before calling names. You are wrong to say I didn't say that and anyone who can read can see you didn't bother.

I'm not a dev but I can see the problem. As long as knots fanboys are celebrating solving a problem they haven't solved and core devs don't GAF no one is even looking or trying to find a real solution.

So I bust my ass trying to raise the issue and all I get is morons on both sides calling me names and dodging the issue.

GermanHodl 3mo ago

Knots proposed and has implemented a solution to rate limited Ordinals. Spam is a cat and mouse game you have to fight on the mempool level, to not drift towards censorship.

I think it's valid to say that the quantity of spam on the chain is a relevant factor and if we can reduce 99% of that it's a good outcome. It makes a difference if the network makes an effort to reduce this behavior or if it opens itself up to it with all guards down.

I didn't say I solved the goddamn problem in any kind of final way. This issue is about mempool sovereignty. It is NOT about a complete solution to spam. Core are being intellectually dishonest and subverting mempool sovereignty, so that takes precedence in the goals of the clued in and responsible among us Knots fans. I never claimed to have all of the answers. You are probably projecting your own arrogance or grouping me in with people I have little in common with.

A real solution to the problem is secondary to the immediate threat that is posed by Core's bullshit. You would be wise to actually engage intellectually with individuals like myself. I have given you the same consideration you gave me, and then some. You can go on assuming bad faith, or you can grow the fuck up and realize there's more to people's goals than just trying to shut you up. It's not all about you. I happen to have very serious reasons to prioritize what I do, but I am open to discussing long term solutions for later down the line, like a consensus change.

Mike 3mo ago

Aaaand there it is.

thinkofthechildren.gif

yes

for the reasons given, "thinking of the children" is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up in a technical debate

it immediately counters the statements/challenges mentioned and instantly illustrates a central tenets of the pro-filter position: that spam is harmful

Yes. If you are in favor of raising the OP_RETURN limit to 100,000 bytes and removing its configurability, you NEED to bite this bullet and say why CSAM is acceptable in people's mempools for your stated reasons.

Mike 3mo ago

Same reason it’s acceptable on chain (it’s already there btw)—Bitcoin must be neutral and censorship resistant. This has unfortunate and unavoidable tradeoffs. If you’re scared of it, don’t run a node.

Five 3mo ago

Spam is subject to semantics. If it was not, we would still have decentralized email, because relays could have easily determined unsolicited or otherwise unwanted data, and more providers would exist, not a fiat reputation system of a handful of players applying arbitrary filters, banning mostly anyone from the system that is not in the oligopoly.

If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone.

We have to draw an arbitrary line to not expose ourselves to malicious attacks though, and the most neutral way to do that is using money i.e. economic incentives. It is the most objective tool of valuation that humans have.

**Valuation** determines spam, which is subjective but money makes it less so, with global consensus enforced by cryptography.

That's why we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with. To do that would lead back to authoritarian regimes. Doing so serves our low time-preference brain rather than whimsical action.

Using bitcoin with the most adherence to reality is dropping this arbitrary limit standing in the way of economic incentives, in my opinion.

I could be wrong bit that is where I am right now.

> Spam is subject to semantics

In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition: chainspam is data embedded in blockchain txs not there solely to securely transfer, reclaim, or privatize value. Transfer means reduce the senders' amount and increase the recipients'. Reclaim means restore part/all of the senders' amount after a failed payment. Privatize means do a coinjoin or similar.

> If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone

It may be possible to express the above definition in one or more algorithms that together filter all spam except possibly for spam requiring off-chain disclosure of a deciphering key. But even if not, there are algorithms that eliminate entire classes of spam from user mempools; they are in use in Knots, for example. One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful.

> we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with

Interesting choice of the term "censoring." Why is it wise to filter DoS attacks? Because users find them harmful, regardless of whether the attacker feels censored. For the same reason, it is wise for users to filter any spam they don't want in their mempools, regardless of whether the creator feels censored.

Five 3mo ago

> "In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition"

Emphasis on **also**. You still are providing examples, not authoritative definition because if we could code sth like this exactly, we would already have done it and made it consensus.

> "One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful."

I agree. That is why there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat.

If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them because their nodes would crash and mining operations would be disrupted.

They are valid transactions you (and I for the matter) don't agree with but the economical incentive says it is profitable to mine them, and it causes a less far-reaching impact than doing such things in other ways. A filter that disrupts economic activity and has worse impacts than dropping it, is harmful overall.

Users can make whimsical choices and think they will virtue signal with filters but I estimate this is not going to be enough when facing economic reality, especially in the long run.