Nostr Web Client

I'm not convinced by Ben's arguments. Thanks for pushing back Matt.

https://fountain.fm/episode/zbXnveqNy4RSnIUSwcso

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqa8arj3nz69sudnwhmgfw87plqjvy3dua2c923383qyxxv9nsa9j5nce05

I was also not persuaded by the arguments in favor of the change and agree that nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 had the best position on the issue: let the node operators decide how they run their node.

The OP_RETURN change doesn’t matter to me in and of itself. Removing configurability for node operators and the arguments put forward to justify that removal seem more problematic to me.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MRbtc 8mo ago 💬 1

I will keep me node as is.

Technician 8mo ago

Fair enough.

waxwing 8mo ago

The node operators already do decide.

Note that delivering software that has 100 configurable options implies creating 100! different test cases *at minimum* (though of course that can't actually be done, implying some scenarios are left untested).

OzzyHB 8mo ago

Yup, found O'Dell's explanation on RHR, direct and to the main points. When ppl make it sound super complicated (just like shitcoiners and their tokens) you know there is some BS in play.

Configurable nodes would be ideal..

protozoan numbness 8mo ago 💬 1

Two nuanced points were made that I wasn't aware of:

1. The limits on OP_RETURN were not added by consensus.

2. Bitcoin Knots is maintained by a single person.

Technician 8mo ago

Indeed. I appreciate Odell offering OpenSats support for Bitcoin Knots.

Stark 8mo ago 💬 1

Would the change prevent operators from adding the carriersize to their config?

Technician 8mo ago

From what I understand—and I may have misunderstood this—that’s the planned change.