Nostr Web Client

The first point you raised is a good food for thought. I'll look deeper into it.

Re "2:10 nobody said OP_RETURN is spam, spam use of OP_RETURN is spam, and we can detect it. 42 bytes of OP_RETURN is more than enough for a hash, therefore prove anything on-chain."

Coinjoin for example is a legitimate use of the network (from my point of view) and it is not relayed when the threshold is set under 42 bytes.

Re "3:15 i wonder why companies(not people) who are spamming the chain right now has to go to the miners directly right now, if filters doesnt work. these are all talked about 100 times, pure nonsense, if it made sense, ipfs would have worked."

They have to go to the miner because most nodes with default settings won't relay their transactions. So they will not be relayed organically. Filters don't work, because they can still pay the miner out-of-band - which they do currently. I don't want this to happen and don't want to encourage this. In fact, it's the benefit of removing the OP_RETURN limit that discourages out-of-band payments and such transactions can be relayed over the chain.

I do not take any issues with people running any other implementation than the Bitcoin node. I'd cautiously say that's a good thing (though atm I haven't thought about its implications for UASF and other consensus changes.)

We are free to refrain from upgrading or turn towards a different node implementation.

nomadshiba⚡ 7mo ago

I wasn't expecting a calm reply, thank you for that :)

> Coinjoin for example is a legitimate use of the network (from my point of view) and it is not relayed when the threshold is set under 42 bytes.

in the note/post i shared at the bottom of my reply i was talking about OP_RETURN can be anything, maybe today we think 42 bytes is fine, maybe tomorrow its 64 or 32. my concern is one implementation decides that. that's bad, and concerning. how many bytes do you need for coin join? I can make it more, i support coinjoin, someone might not. maybe someone believe there is no place of privacy on the base layer and we shouldn't sacrifice other things for privacy. thats for people/users to decide, not a single repo.

> They have to go to the miner because most nodes with default settings won't relay their transactions. So they will not be relayed organically. Filters don't work, because they can still pay the miner out-of-band - which they do currently. I don't want this to happen and don't want to encourage this. In fact, it's the benefit of removing the OP_RETURN limit that discourages out-of-band payments and such transactions can be relayed over the chain.

I mean that's my point going directly to the miner will never be cheaper. because making blocks with never before seen txs on the network always guaranteed to cause latency for the miner.

Make it expensive, painful, so it will never go mainstream, and they will look for other homes.

And again main issue is that a miner can guarantee a block, issue is mining centralization. And there are multiple some experimental solutions for it.

And again I don't wanna make it easier for them. The fact that they directly have to go to the miners is a good sign for me. And the fact that miners can guarantee blocks is what's concerning. I'm concerned about my house is burning, not my clothes are getting dirty because of the smoke.

> I do not take any issues with people running any other implementation than the Bitcoin node. I'd cautiously say that's a good thing (though atm I haven't thought about its implications for UASF and other consensus changes.)

> We are free to refrain from upgrading or turn towards a different node implementation.

Yes that's why I'm trying to implement by own. If I can make it the way I envisioned it, then I will make it public.

At worse case I learn a lot trying to make it.

Again thank you for replying honestly.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Momo 7mo ago

Of course 😊

I'm married to no view and I'm just a curious pleb.

"I mean that's my point going directly to the miner will never be cheaper. because making blocks with never before seen txs on the network always guaranteed to cause latency for the miner."

I had the exact same view and it's even reflected in one of my Nostr posts. The issue I have with it is that at the current climate of things, it reinforces more mining centralization and the extra money goes directly to the pocket of miners with no trace on the blockchain and that's what I wouldn't like to encourage.

I am aware of the solutions to mining centralization, but till they become more widely accepted this is gonna be my view. Although I'm curious to see how developments such as Stratum V2 pan out.