#asknostr What is the #Bitcoin Core vs. Knots thing about? What did I miss?
Discussion
Basically, Core says open up the OP RETURN field for other use cases than money, so they don’t misuse utxos like they do now.
Knots says, start filtering out anything that resembles anything other than transactions (spam) at the node level.
Two side notes: What defines “spam” is subjective, hence the discussions. And also OP_RETURN can still be dropped on your node so it doesn’t bloat your ssd.
I see. I guess it's good we have options. I wonder how this will shake out over time.
In short (and my understanding), knots filters spam and everything that has nothing to do with BTC. It's time to switch to knots ;)
How do we decide what is spam and what isn't?
I found this very interesting
I have enjoyed what I have seen from mechanic before. I am using ocean pool. I feel quite clueless considering I am a miner.
I'm not a technician at all...and understand just a small part still...but it feels right what he claims to know/believe...
Watching now. Thank you. Hopefully I can learn something. A lot of this will probably go over my head.
For some reason I trust the mechanic. Just going by how I feel about how they speak.
Guy Swann had a very balanced take on the whole debate here: https://fountain.fm/episode/twR9XdpCO0yoMTSQUGPj
Gist of it is that the reasoning behind removing the datacarrier limit for OP_ RETURN is sound, but the devs should not have been surprised that it would be controversial, and Core has generally avoided making controversial updates. It probably also wouldn't have been nearly such a big deal if they left it configurable, but their plan is currently to remove the option to configure it.
Meanwhile, Knots is keeping it configurable. You can run knots with no limit on the datacarrier size if you want, or you can leave it at the default 40 bytes, or you can set it to Core's current default. Point is, you have options with Knots that Core is planning to take away.
One of the arguments made by the folks supporting the change to Core is that OP_RETURN is a far better place for arbitrary data to be stored, because it can safely be pruned by nodes, so they don't have to store that data. However, there is no financial incentive for the jpeg and BRC 20 folks to put their data into OP_ RETURN, because they are currently putting it into the witness data, where they get a significant fee discount. Even if the datacarrier limit is removed, there is absolutely no reason to believe the degens will forego that free discount and start placing their garbage in OP_ RETURN instead.
Thanks. I found Samson Mow on the Bitcoin Infinity Podcast a good listen too, where it was discussed.
Thanks
Team knots
I'm considering switching over. I don't feel like I understand well enough yet.
Yeah, don’t take anyone’s word for it. Your node is your vote. I want bitcoin to exclusively be a monetary network—not cloud storage for companies to shill their bullshit.
Makes sense. How is it decided what to include or exclude? Is it automated somehow with parameters?
With Bitcoin core’s latest update, they have removed the data limit to filter spam. They claim that spam still gets through the filter so they removed it. I think that’s what people are upset about. Removing the choice.
A burglar can get into a home with locked doors. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t lock your doors. Just my opinion.
Interesting. I wonder if there is some reason for the change we aren't hearing about. Is it just a small group of people that male these decisions?
Yea, the developers at Bitcoin core made the choice. People voiced their opposition, but were shut out of the conversation. I always say, follow the incentives. I’m sure someone has some financial motivation to do this. It really just impacts transactions in the mempool. So, if a node without the filter finds the block, all those spammy transactions will be part of the permanent blockchain.
I thought miners find blocks? Its funny that I am a miner and still don't understand so much about bitcoin.
As I understand it, the miner is always connected to a pool, which is hosted by a node. When a miner solves the block, the block that the node has in memory is the one posted to the blockchain. Each node can have different transactions in the block currently being worked on based on filters.
Very close. Miners must be connected to a node in some way; either the miner's own node or via a pool that runs a node, or via a pool that gets block templates from another pool that runs a node.
The reason for this is because each node has a mempool, which is just a list of transactions that are waiting to be included in a block. From this pool of waiting transactions a block template is constructed that includes the transactions the mining pool or the individual miner using their own node would like to include in the block, if they find a valid hash that will allow them to broadcast their block for inclusion on the chain to all nodes in the network.
Technically, solo-mining is when you as a miner use your own node's mempool to create the block templates for your ASICs to hash. If you are getting your block templates from a mining pool, even a "solo" pool, you aren't really solo-mining. Rather, you are lottery-mining.
Even if you aren't a miner, your node's mempool settings can have an effect on the transactions that get mined, because your node helps to relay transactions to other nodes on the network, including the nodes that mining pools are using for creating transactions. If enough nodes on the network aren't relaying transactions with arbitrary data in them, it will be less likely that those transactions will make it into the mempools used for block construction by mining pools or individual miners who construct their own blocks. The more difficult this is for those who want to put non-monetary transactions onto the chain, the more they will have to pay in fees to incentivise miners to include their transactions, which disincentivises such transactions.
Given the current state of the mempools, an argument could be made that such transactions have already been disincentivised, for now.
Thanks for the breakdown.
I’ve only been in bitcoin for about six months. I have a limited understanding still.
You must be a fast learner. I have been holding some bitcoin for like 8 years. Lol
Well, I mine with a bitaxe. That took me down the mining/node rabbit hole.
nostr:note1xy9qhclu3k92ympz0zfgdmxj9dkf27fc6m2s8pyqp2ervttm0u2s576h6u
No, some are just not happy with the communications of Core devs and now they want to apply a filter for op_return...
No to what? I am confused about what you are saying?
This explains all quite well: https://youtu.be/gjYrzi7xYo8