Replying to Avatar Luke Dashjr

Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit:

1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.

2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").

3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.

The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.
Avatar
Kodo⚡️ 6mo ago

if there is a fork, will i need to transfer my coins to the new chain or will it happen automatically?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Satoshi Nakamoto 6mo ago

If you hold your keys you don’t have to worry about a fork. Your coins will be on both chains.

Avatar
Tauri 6mo ago

There won’t be a fork. Knots enforces the same consensus rule set as Core. The only difference is how the two clients handle policy rules, which can’t result in a chain split.

3a
028559d218 6mo ago

So if the Knots clients with additional filters doesn't 'fix the spam'... the only course of action at that point is a consensus change. Which could result in a hard fork.

If the filters don't work well enough... then a consensus change is warranted. Right?

Avatar
Tauri 6mo ago

Filters work well when deployed on large enough scale. They don’t fix the problem entirely. The fallacy of the other side’s argument is that we should aim for perfect results with getting rid of the spam (which won’t happen even if we fork the chain with consensus rule change) or we should abandon the fight entirely.

3a
028559d218 6mo ago

I don't believe that filtering op_return is possible. It has been around 10 years... and any op_return of any size is enough space for degens to 'create' meme coins. A "rune" is just an op_return with a name... "indicating" arbitrarily that an output or outputs are 'memecoins'. It's really silly.

Couldn't other data schemes effectively do the same thing? The vast majority of inscriptions aren't even jpegs... they're 'tokens' or indicators for tokens which op_return can already do.