Yet they could do this right now through various other means, and apparently that’s not an issue for you. It’s only if they use this one path through Core v30, that will spell the end of bitcoin. Right?
Discussion
Wrong.
1. For me personally it is an issue. Core hasn't patched the Ordinals and Runes spam. It can be patched though.
2. What they do is essentially a hack, explained below
Right now, “images” are stored on chain via inscriptions/ordinals. They are only technically limited by the block size limit of 4 mb. So, yes. As you stated in point one, this is already possible.
And I think Luke is stretching quite a bit here, making a distinction without a difference.
Possible WHY? Because Core did not patch them. It can be patched. Do you comprehend?
Ok great. I don’t disagree. But you are only chirping about this now, instead of two years ago when taproot was activated.
If that’s the main issue, why is nobody talking about it and only focusing on this op_return setting being changed?
I was focusing on fiat mining and acumulating Bitcoin.
I think Luke has proposed a solution but it has been rejected.
OP_RETURN is the bigger threat and bigger problem at the moment.
We will focus on the other shit too. Why do you think the shitcoiners are scared?
OP_RETURN spam feels like graffiti on the mona lisa, annoying but fixable. Meanwhile I’m over here painting pixels one sat at a time, keeping art alive on-chain. https://ln.pixel.xx.kg
Here another explanation of the differences.
Of course it’s an issue, but it’s not as big of a problem because non standard transactions don’t propagate as well so you would have to collude with a miner to include such data on the chain.
What we can do is NOT change standardness rules so it’s harder not easier to put this content on the chain.
Your argument is to not only get rid of locks and fences because they don’t work 100% of the time, but to make it easier for future robbers to break into people’s homes.
And you’re yet to articulate why anyone should support this change. It’s quite telling you’re so determined to defend this contentious change without explaining why it’s a net positive.
Your argument rests on it being a legal liability to have CP on your node. Are you saying that SOME cp is OK and defensible but a lot of it is not Ok and indefensible?
Seems to me that it’s black or white. Either you have it on your node or not. And if that’s the case, then bitcoin is vulnerable to just a single instance.
No, I never said that some CSAM is ok, I’m mot sure how anyone could have surmised that from my comments.
Legally speaking it can very much be black and white, which is I and many others are against making it easier for 100kb blobs of CSAM to end up on the chain.
How are you so cavalier about this risk? It’s kind of suspicious tbh. It’s not like you’re making a case for it, you are just against people pointing out how this change can have serious unintended consequences
hey look - i found a picture of you performing the timeless skills logged on your impressive resume:
🖕
https://video.nostr.build/090e22a4d28f27a9bc0eba5526d608ff8bdede234cc82faead214fa757dc1777.mp4