Avatar
The Daniel 🖖 7mo ago

Even if you’re not a technical person, the comments in this thread are worth reading so you understand what calculations were made, for and against this change, and who stood by which principles in the end.

I don’t claim to be smart enough to understand all the details, but this line by nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr stood out to me:

“I’d rather Core change course and stop undermining the network by forcing through changes so widely detested in service of turning nodes into free relay services for miners wanting to fill the chain up with trash.”

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Oshi (推し) 7mo ago

It seems logical.

Avatar
Scrotus 7mo ago

The blocks are empty ffs

Avatar
McCoy 7mo ago

Relay policy/nonstandardness efforts are not longterm as neutral and not truly uncorruptible as fees. Perhaps Core has arrived at a rough concensus that this is true and is *asking* the community to take on the filtering?

Avatar
OceanSlim 7mo ago

"in service of turning nodes into free relay services for miners wanting to fill the chain up with trash."

This is the part I disagree with. He's attributing a motive to core devs that they don't have. This is NOT the motivation for the change.

Moving the goal posts now too. "Change the default but don't remove the option" everyone said. That's what they did and ow there's still drama. That's why they should've just merged Todds PR. Now, we'll be having the same discussion and drama next year when we learn changing the default filter to uncapped had no effect on anything so another proposal comes along to remove it again.