discuss
https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce
Discussion
In foresight, it was obvious.
Have fun putting jpegs on the blockchain 👍 you're really improving bitcoin as money
No sir, this is a post about Lightning game theory, which should take into account how others are using Bitcoin.
There is a lot of lightning node operators that are in the dark on this issue and would benefit if they understand how mempool/relay policy made consistent with block inclusion policy on this issue affords them greater protection (gotta observe to set fee appropriately) and decentralization (disincentivize centralization)
And you areeeeee: putting jpegs on the blockchain.
I've never put an image on the blockchain.
I've never even created an OP_RETURN.
Never saw a need.
sometimes you have to hold your nose to get the useless stuff out of witness data. If it means less utxos to track, it’s a good trade off.
No guarantee that spammers will use the OP_RETURN instead of the SW especially because it would be more expensive to do so. You really think spammers will voluntarily pay more because it’s the ethically right thing to do?
This is like the city putting Porta potties in parks because homeless people were shitting in the park. All that ends up happening is more people go to park to take a shit and fill up the porta potties and the homeless are still shitting in the grass.
It’s also like how California raised the misdemeanor limit to under $1000. What happened? Theft skyrocketed. When they lowered back down a few years later theft slowed down almost immediately.
By removing the limit we signal to shitcoiners come to Bitcoin you can shitcoin over here now.
In fact Vitalik Buterin decided not to build ethereum on Bitcoin because of the mere existence of the OP_RETURN. He said a ban or limit could render his project obsolete.
This is a shitcoiners wet dream and y’all are cheering for it but somehow get upset when Saylor buys corn. There is a serious lack of common sense in the Bitcoin community what the fuck happened to y’all.
I had a cope for 2 years about this.
If you can’t block all the spam/arb data,
Is it stopping you from using bitcoin how like?
Permissionless tech is a mf lol
Fuck
I will not be updating my Core nodes and I will be spinning up multiple Knots nodes.
More nodes doesn't matter. It's economic density of the node(s).
Sounds logical to me.
Never should have allowed this behavior back in 2023
I’m against it
Translation:
I have done no research into this topic, nor do I intend to, I simply oppose any and all current things in a feeble attempt to fulfill a deeply seeded desire for stability and control in life
I don't mind admitting this is above my knowledge, so I'm interested in other's opinions. For me I am not keen on changes but neither am I a fan of filtering (censorship). The consensus was to bring in taproot, before, for L2 etc... From that we opened the door for ordinals.
I like privacy and freedom. My biggest concern is, if we go down a filtering root, you open the door to greater censorship and elitistm. Isn't #Bitcoin for anyone?
It's actually simple but it's framed as complicated by the people pushing this.
"Trust the experts"
Is Bitcoin's only use case as money?
Should node runners have the option to configure their me pool?
Should code changes to the default client require discussion and consensus?
Should we be concerned about conflicts of interest of devs pushing changes?
I'd say common sense would be to answer "yes" to all the above. Who we have now as "Bitcoin Core" largely and surprisingly don't agree.
There are conflicts of interest here. What is Bitcoin? Is it just money? Is it hope? Is it freedom? Some say all of these things. My biggest concern is that by filtering you are excluding. Exclusion makes you eletist. I believe you should be allowed to do whatever youwantt as long as you don't harm others. My other concern is placing trust in one man. One ring to rule them...
Then there is the workarounds. No one foresaw the ordinals (well not that I know of). They came in by finding a path. We always find a path if we want to get somewhere bad enough.
Have you disabled your email spam folder because it's exclusionary?
Excluding spam is completely expected and reasonable.
When spammers/shitcoiners forcie all nodes to store and propagate arbitrary data that is harmful. Same for driving up tx fees. Both are harmful.
Yes Ordinals exist because devs exploited a bug. So the bug should be fixed imo.
Bitcoin is a monetary network, not a platform for free file storage via unfixed exploit
Whom defines what is spam and what isn't. Is a text file spam? If so the Genesis block is full of spam. If it isn't, as it is just data, how much data before it's spam? Nothing is as black and white as you infer.
Might actually update my core version for the first time in years
Fuck Bitcoin Core Wizards.
What fucking universe is this
Standardness will die
The jpegs are coming, the jpegs are coming
Miners decide what's in blocks, node runners decide what goes in their own mempools. I won't run software that takes away my autonomy. If there's a reason to remove the limit then convince me to change the setting. Forcing this is a big red flag.
Mempools aren't there to express personal preference; they're there for the health of decision making of your nodes and your peer nodes (i.e. knowing asap what transactions may be in the next blocks). Assuming you aren't mining.
Of course you *can* use your mempool to express opinion instead, but it doesn't help you.
I think bitcoin has gone too far to accommodate spam. Yes, that's my subjective opinion of what spam is, which is the only definition that matters to me. This is the one lever I can pull to fight that as a node runner. Maybe you think that's naive. I do not care. I'm not giving it up. Even if you're right, and I'm convinced to turn off this option, I insist on having a way to go back, without downgrading, to what I'm doing now. I feel burned by unintended consequences in the past, so I will do whatever I can to avoid the same mistake. Maybe running knots is just a futile gesture, but if that's all I can do then so be it.
If mempools aren’t there to express personal preference then why are they not consensus rules?
You are projecting your personal preference of removing the limits on OP_RETURN with no way for users to opt out (aside from not updating or running knots) and have the audacity to say that the people who want to keep bitcoin the same are using the mempool to express their personal opinion is some backwards ass logic.
The reason why libre relay isn’t enough for people like yourself are that not enough node runners are opting to run this spam blasting node on their own and getting spam txs in blocks is still difficult. Thats why spammers are pushing for bitcoin core to make this policy change and their hope is that 1/2 of the node runners who are running the most current version blindly update to the latest version and propagate spam.
Yes, as here too.
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqycfjjnu6447dhwyf0t9lkmyucev3grk6tcvxa6w5ptf63kxl6lmqyghwumn8ghj7vf5xqhxvdm69e5k7tcprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzpyav36qmjpa2fmrt774vth7scmnwcwwfv6jv8j7puqztrdurrkhwsagxdh
De que lado estas Odell, me gustaría saber
It's irrelevant what side ODELL is on, just as it's irrelevant what side any core dev is on.
What is relevant is understanding the impacts and making decisions based on your understanding which may evolve over time.
Es irrelevante pero me gustaría saber que piensa al menos
I am for the change
- improves decentralization as it disincentivizes going straight to miners to include valid transactions.
- let's my node see the transaction, before included in a block, so my lightning node can adequately adjust fees for channel closures and justice tx with peers.
- incentivizes developers that want/need data pinning or publication that goes beyond a simple hash to use nice formats that don't bloat utxo set and are easily purgeable. In exchange they get improved privacy and don't need to work special deals with miners or TX accelerators.
I personally don't care if there is a toggle or not in core to let people control data carrier size and limits. But I do want us to get past the arbitrary restriction whose original purpose is no longer served and may be contributing to poor outcomes. I'm also not gonna get butthurt if we don't make this change as there are bigger issues to tackle.
Your mempool should be as configurable as possible. OP_RETURN should be 42 bytes by default as it was originally.
It doesn't seem to me that perverse incentives are fixed by adding a voluntary "polite" option. As long as it's cheaper for degens to take the impolite avenue, then it's pure hopium to think that's not exactly what they should be expected to continue to do.
That being said, I don't believe I have a direct vote in what Core decides to do. I can only vote with my feet. OP_RETURN limit notwithstanding, everyone should be seriously considering finding an alternative - even if only for the sake of decentralization. Core clearly has way too much centralized influence over the network as it currently stands.
"i am a large miner providing an out-of-band transaction processing service. by preventing consensus valid transactions from propagating in the mempool it creates a class of transaction that my competition is unable or unwilling to benefit from. this increases my return on the same amount of hashrate having exclusive access to transactions submitted directly to my out-of-band service. i support mempool policy filters for the opportunity to develop a competitive advantage over other miners. while incremental initially, over the long term, this advantage may allow expansion of my mining operation more quickly than others, potentially pushing smaller competition out all together."
removing the limit makes sense to me and i will continue running core
nevent1qqsx94fmhplf30cvw4048tvpzlsknm69lp9g9na5wphg84xaj8mpcsqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5u6vud2
Couldn't spammers still use the witness field for putting arbitrary data on chain? And isn't it cheaper to use the witness field to do that? I don't think either points made under "The 80-byte ceiling is now counter-productive" address these questions and I'm not sure if I'm right so I'll post here.
Yes and yes
I'm very doubtful which side to be on. It's a very complex discussion
A little reminder :
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq40rg0n93yrn6vf0e2esqa0yk35px6dk23v7lum20ch7f7yq4ngmqqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sws3ew4
How is this relevant to this discussion?
Hopefully more people start not using Core...
Just curious, the more data in the op_return, the higher the transaction fee because vbytes are higher? And doesn’t more users of the Bitcoin network lead to higher fees, higher demand for Bitcoin, and more money for miners, and higher Bitcoin prices when denominated in USD?
Does this all boil down to whether you trust free market dynamics? I watched block fees get insane with inscriptions but that didn’t last long and cost people a lot of money…..
Would buying a bitaxe be a valid way for a pleb to profit from the “spammers”?
(I have only briefly read up on the bitcoin core drama and definitely don’t know what I’m talking about)
I think the bitaxe would have to mine a block to profit, it wouldn't get any extra fees until that happened.
Do you know who owns GitHub? Yes, GitHub is owned by Microsoft. I never liked that for the Bitcoin reference software. Since it seems inevitable that arbitrary data could be stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, what better way to do it being the repository for the software itself? And of course, it would be decentralized and permissionless, unlike GitHub. We're missing a "gitbtc". 🤔