Nostr Web Client

For everyone getting on me about the OP_RETURN stuff:

I’m 100% open to being wrong, I was wrong about CTV and how I thought it could be maliciously used, but I’ve also only heard a handful of the exact same arguments about this issue for years and have been very clear why I don’t think they are sufficient and why I believe some of them are not even relevant.

• “Filters for what goes into the chain are censorship,” this is false and filtering what can be done on chain is literally how and why Bitcoin works in every way that it works. This completely begs the question about what is spam and what is an exploit, which is the whole debate.

• “You can get around it” isn’t relevant either, as standards make a difference, which is exactly why the discussion is around changing the standards. Same as someone can jump over my fence, but that doesn’t mean having one vs not being allowed to build one has no effect at all.

• “Your node doesn’t do anything,” Is the same argument I was told during the blocksize war. I’m aware it doesn’t alter the entirety of the network and it’s just my node, so don’t tell me like you’ve discovered some new information, but it is still *my* node and someone proposing to remove my control over what I should or should not accept and propagate isn’t why I run a node. I use my node to mine and wish to build my own templates. Explain how putting Bitcoins use as money ahead of as a place to store jpegs is bad. I don’t care how ineffective you think it is, but why is it bad for Bitcoin?

• “Just run Knots.” Correct, I will be now. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion about changes being made to core, and when feedback is asked for I’ll give you my honest opinion. If that bothers someone then being part of a decentralized protocol is probably not the best path for them. All anyone has done since I got into bitcoin was argue. That’s how decentralization works.

• “They paid a fee and it’s valid.” See point 1. Every bug and malicious transaction and spam in the past was always valid and paid the proper fee. Again, completely begs the question as to what is spam and what the highest purpose of Bitcoin is.

This is a conversation about the purpose of Bitcoin, and yes that’s subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary or it doesn’t matter. Convince me that allowing random data in unrestrained sizes will make Bitcoin better money, or the technical argument doesn’t matter, imo. Technical conversations matter only after we decide what is *worth* building technical solutions for and what the purpose of any technical change is… so again, it begs the question and comes back to the same old disagreement.

This is how I see it and I don’t see how this is at all an unreasonable perspective. Just my 2 sats

OceanSlim 8mo ago 💬 4

Because no individual should be the arbiter of what transactions are valuable. To me, this change only serves to make core less complex, not more. Simplifying The code base is a noble goal. The block size is still limited to 4mb. So the concern that it makes nodes harder to run is invalid imo.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

supermass 8mo ago

my mempool my rules, you are not getting this component.

we determine what transactions are valuable TO US.

the blockchain will still aggregate those values for everyone else if they are properly participating.

OceanSlim 8mo ago 💬 1

I am getting that component... You're the one that seems to be missing that point since you want to enforce filters on mine...

supermass 8mo ago

the filter is still enforced WITH the PR.

it’s just enforced to allow a different set of data upon the rest of us.

there’s no escape from that

Guy Swann 8mo ago

The second part is fair and a decent point, but the conversation between whether Bitcoin is a system for monetary transactions versus a place to store jpegs is not "individuals arbitrating what transactions are valuable." It is a question of what *is* a transaction in the first place.

This is why i think the court analogy is very apt:

By saying the courts should be restricted only to arbitration and judicial judgement protecting people's rights, and that we should not allow people to rent it out for parties and concerts, is not someone dictating which is valuable, its making a clear engineering/design choice to protect the *purpose* of the system. If the system doesn't have a purpose and isn't designed to protect or ensure a particular use case, it will serve *none* of them well.

This is exactly why Bitcoin explicitly did not go the Ethereum route.

"A jack of all trades is a master of none."

I'm in this for the explicit purpose of designing and protecting a master system of sound money and that axiomatically requires valuing it for monetary security and exchange over storing somebody's jpegs.

OceanSlim 8mo ago

I have no problem with running or funding concensous forks. Would be nice to have like none, lite and heavy, filter forks. Let the community decide what they want on chain. If it becomes a problem we can all switch to heavy. UASF ftw right?