Replying to Avatar FernandoTheKoala

ok I see, but what still puzzles me is this:

1) it seems the only way to stop spams is to change what a valid transaction is at the consensus level. This was discussed in the past (2 years ago PR was submitted if I am correct) but it was rejected as "controversial". But the PR that was just pushed now in a hurry (remove filters) is also clearly controversial. So why does it work in one way but not the other? And why have we given up dicussing it at the consensus level?

2) I don't understand why we are so worried about fees for miners, isn't the block reward more than enough for a few years? is any miner going to stop mining because the fees are too low now? Also, I thought the difficulty adjustment was there to self-regulate the mining ecosystem, why are we now intervening to give miners bigger fees?

3) Hypothetically, let's say that with this core 29v it does happens that spam transaction fill blocks and drive up fees, making it harder and more expensive for monmey transactions to get in. At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level? Because from their statements it seems that in this case their stance would be "oh well btc is a database for whatever the market wants it to be, so if it is for jpeg and spamsn then let it be it"

Cheers
Avatar
Toad 7mo ago

1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.

2) Sure, miners mine because they get a reward, otherwise we would never have the hashpower that we have now. If block subsidy goes away, miners only live off transaction fees and if they are not coming in due to empty blocks, it will make many of them go out of business and in fact be a big attack on bitcoin. The first thing we need to make sure is, that the blocks are "as full as possible". Only this can guarantee infinite success. The rest comes afterwards. If we manage to do this with "real transactions only", then fine. But I have my doubts about that, as the bitcoin main layer is not a payment network, ppl use cheap 2nd layer solutions.

3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?

Nobody knows that. But also, it does not matter what "core" thinks, bitcoin is decentralized. If that happens, I will flip to bitcoin knots and agree that I was wrong. I would also support the hardfork that it would cause. Bitcoiners are mostly sane and intelligent people and VC money does not direct the course of bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already proof of that. I, who am an actual user of if and therefore have the most "say" in this, will not support Bitcoin becoming an ad platform.1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.

2) Sure, miners mine because they get a reward, otherwise we would never have the hashpower that we have now. If block subsidy goes away, miners only live off transaction fees and if they are not coming in due to empty blocks, it will make many of them go out of business and in fact be a big attack on bitcoin. The first thing we need to make sure is, that the blocks are "as full as possible". Only this can guarantee infinite success. The rest comes afterwards. If we manage to do this with "real transactions only", then fine. But I have my doubts about that, as the bitcoin main layer is not a payment network, ppl use cheap 2nd layer solutions.

3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?

Nobody knows that. But also, it does not matter what "core" thinks, bitcoin is decentralized. If that happens, I will flip to bitcoin knots and agree that I was wrong. I would also support the hardfork that it would cause. Bitcoiners are mostly sane and intelligent people and VC money does not direct the course of bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already proof of that. I, who am an actual user of if and therefore have the most "say" in this, will not support Bitcoin becoming an ad platform.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
FernandoTheKoala 7mo ago

1) I guess ppl who were and are still now against non-monetary uses of bitcoin are simply "monetary maxis" who want btc to function PRIMARILY for monetary purposes (and I am one of those). I don't mind if btc is used for other purposes, but I feel like we first need to establish btc as monetary protocol, and only AFTER this is secured then sure, add other stuff on it as long as they don't interfere with the monetary use cases.

Don't know enough about Taproot to express an opinion here. If you feel like wasting time explaining to me much appreciated, otherwise I'll dig into it!

2) Here I don't agree man. I think the mining fee will be more than enough for the next few decades, it is more than enough giving current and future btc price. Also, the difficulty adjustment is there to balance the mining ecosystem, I think it works great as it is and interfering by "manipulating" miners fee seems unneccessary and mostly a bad direction/priority to take (do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners? is that where our help should be directed?).

Also, nobody likes to see an empty memepool, but filling it with spam just so we can say it's full I don't think is the solution here (again, because tx fees are not what makes miners give up or take mining in the first place)

3) We are on the same page here man, we want the same thing. I don't give a shit about getting rich, this is a matter of contributing to the creation of a free monetary network and all the beautiful consequences that this entails. I hope I'm wrong but I thik we'll have to support the future hard fork sooner than we think, this whole thing smells fishy.....

might be that I am in my own bubble (and I am because I care about btc being money and nothing else) but all the "influencers" I follow are opposed to this change (btc session, the bitcoin way, bitcoin not crypto, Bram, Mattew krater, Jeff Booth). The only influencer I follow which is in favour if this is Lyn Alden, and her rational is what worries me the most as in one of her comment she said "do you think there's more demand for non-monetary uses of btc? then let's allow it"

Avatar
Toad 7mo ago

2) >do we really need to prioritise and help huge miners

No, we help all miners. Not only the big ones? Also, calling non-monetary transactions "spam" is a bit one sided in my opinion. Sure, you can see it as spam, but why is that spam and all other transactions unrelated to you are not? Both are to no use for you and you still store both on your own node.

3) AFAIK Luke Dashjr is the ONLY contributor to bitcoin knots and he commits without reviews. I didn't fact check this, but that would be an issue towards me. The OP_RETURN unlimited thing is less important than an introduced vulnerability that nobody is aware of.

I know that we both want the same. My concerns are anyways for things far in the future. But imho, we need economical incentives and not morales. That being said, I don't care if this OP_RETURN limits gets increased or not, but I'm still not sure how I think about this "filtering" thing. I think filters are here to stay, but I just don't see how they are effective, if they don't follow economical incentives, because miners will use the software that does. Miners want the max amount of bitcoins possible for the least amount of invested energy. Knots nodes not forwarding these transactions is useless, as the big miners anyways have direct connections with each other.

I prefer following economical incentives, as long as the network remains stable. If we see that we took the wrong path, we should fix it from there. If we see that it works, then we have created the best bitcoin possible.