Nostr Web Client

1. It was always possible to put arbitrary data on #Bitcoin

2. It would be cheap and easy for a State actor to have done so at any point in the past.

3. A smart State actor would have seeded the time chain with illegal data long ago just in case they ever wanted to weaponize it.

4. Therefore, it is nearly certain that ILLEGAL DATA IS ALREADY ON EVERY FULL NODE OF EVERY BLOCK CHAIN.

5. If you truly believe that this is an existential threat to Bitcoin, then you may as well give up crawl back to fiat.

6. Bitcoin is indestructible, it’ll be just fine without your hand-wringing.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

𝖋𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖎𝖊𝖗 (¯`◕‿◕´¯) 4mo ago

No you make it easier for any tom, dick and harry and make it much worse.

Moronic argument.

jimbocoin 🃏 4mo ago

There are two ways to fight unwanted data. Pay-to-play, or an arms race of filtering.

Adam Back figured this out decades ago. HashCash was invented as a solution to email spam to replace brittle filtering. Satoshi Nakamoto took this to the next level as the basis for a monetary system.

Re-introducing a filter arms race is a step backwards.

𝖋𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖎𝖊𝖗 (¯`◕‿◕´¯) 4mo ago

It is not always about money.

There are people who want to kill bitcoin.

Instead of hardening it, they make it easier.

That’s fucking stupid.

You supporting it is even stupider.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Yep. You can do both filtering and pay to play. Nostr works this way. Email works this way. Both are decentralized just fine. Why not bitcoin?

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

so, where is hashcash for email today?

has PoW really stopped spam on nostr also? (hint, no, but auth whitelisting has had a dramatic effect)

so the thesis is back to front. filtering is the first line of defense. for a public good like the "global feed" of bitcoin's chain, you have to at least *start* by removing the bias that favors spammy data in witness sections of transactions. the first thing that core should be talking about doing is removing the witness discount. they would easily be able to persuade the whole flock of bitcoin nodes to agree with this change. but no, instead they are disabling filters instead.

the actions are contrary to the intent. end the witness discount. put a cap on taproot push. and if the consensus is being held back from adopting these changes, people are going to reach for whatever tools that can do something to at least slow down this trash getting on chain.

i don't mind if people really want to pay through the nose to put JPG files on chain. they just should pay the same as everyone else.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

adam back deserves kudos for inventing PoW but PoW never became useful until it was applied to bitcoin, and the history of shitcoins using PoW is pretty clear that it doesn't work well for anything other than bitcoin.

i keep saying this to PoW enjoyoors but they just aren't listening.

firstly, a desktop computer is way faster at doing EC pubkey derivations than a mobile

secondly, they don't exist yet, exactly, but it's conceivable that AVX/AVX2/AVX512 and other SIMD implementations probably could be created that would put the desktop computer far ahead of mobile devices

third, if there's money in spamming a network protected by PoW, they will do the investing to build pubkey derivation ASICs and then even desktops are game over. the spammers will win because their profit margin is sufficient that they can afford to bypass PoW by using accelerators.

the only reason why it works for bitcoin is because bitcoin is worth more than the cost of PoW accelerators. they have been on the network since 2014 and every year leap ahead by several zeros most of the time.

the only reason why it works for bitcoin is because bitcoin is more expensive than the asics. and this is a fact because otherwise it would not pay to mine.

jimbocoin 🃏 4mo ago

Putting illegal data on Bitcoin is a self-defeating strategy for anyone other than a State actor. It’s basically prosecution futures. Encoding evidence for all time that any future lawman can use to track you down.

Fears about illegal data being easier to encode are deaf to the incentives against doing so.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Some people just want to watch the world burn. Have you considered that? Evil exists. I use my property to defend against it, and I have the right to do that. You've made a great argument to not be pessimistic about Bitcoin, but you have not and cannot refute this central claim.

Des Imoto マキシ 4mo ago

Time to fork?

Wizdumb 4mo ago

This is such a poor take. You clearly underestimate the significance of this moment in time. This has obvious technical elements but ultimately this is a culture war for #bitcoin.

Your vague, defeatist indifference to something so important won’t age well if the ethos of #bitcoin gets dismantled by this OP_Return shit.

#Bitcoin is difficult to destroy, yes. Indestructible, no. Destroy the culture and obfuscate the purpose…destroy the network.

Hopefully you and others like you change your tune sooner rather than later ✌️

Resonance Cascade The II 4mo ago

I have hope the node runners will decide. I'm guessing V30 adoption will be sluggish at best

jimbocoin 🃏 4mo ago

To be clear, while I think the Knotters arguments are invalid and poorly reasoned, I am genuinely happy to see a non-Core node achieve some traction.

In the beginning, there was only Core. Over time, Core functions have peeled off. Mining, pool coordination, software wallets, signing devices, indexing, etc. Now we’re seeing the split-off of pre-confirmation peering policy. This is a good thing.

It’s important that we agree on the consensus rules, but beyond that, the more diverse the ecosystem of software the better. I’d like to see Core reduced to basically “lib consensus” and let everything else get handled at the application layer.

Resonance Cascade The II 4mo ago

It would not have gotten to the extent it has, if they weren't so obnoxious and dictatorial