Its really obvious who actually pays attention right now and who is just getting their information tenth-hand from this site.

Bitcoin Core GitHub has always been for technical discussion relevant to the specific PR to avoid it being impossible for them to get any work done. There are many other places to have broader discussions (e.g. the mailing list, IRC, delving, etc).

Bitcoin Core is *finally* enforcing this rule, which is incredibly healthy for the project as it allows developers to stay focused, and people are upset because they only get bad takes on this site and don't actually research what happened. If you went and looked, you'd see that people who got banned were repeatedly making off-topic comments and didn't stop when it was made clear they should. That deserves a ban in *any* community.

As for the specific thing going on, yes, sadly having a relay policy in Bitcoin Core that accepts all the transactions that people want to make (in this case Citrea wants to make) is a *critical* feature of the Bitcoin network. It ensures small miners (like Ocean!) are able to compete by making sure all transactions are available to everyone, rather than only available to large pools like @MARA via their Slipstream product or ViaBTC via their accelerator.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Oh hey look someone who doesnt just blindly follow the herd here here sir

Can I ask a crazy question that I am unfamiliar with? Does Citrea relay out of band transactions to every miner?

*Critical my ass*

Always appreciate your takes

Interesting. I'd admit I was one that had an opinion based on the censorship surrounding discussing the PR more than the actual code aspect of this. I do find your "*finally* enforcing the rule piece is interesting" comment interesting.

Why are they choosing to start enforcement now? Will they conveniently go back to not doing so after this one is wrapped up?

I feel like I've seen this sort of thing before, about a year or so ago, but I cannot recall the nym so I'm not going to speak authoritatively. But if memory serves, someone voiced they had issues surrounding a PR and they too were banished to the cornfields by some of the same people IIRC.

It sounds like the Github needs a group of impartial moderators at this point to remove the perception that opposition gets censored/treated unfairly? Some food for thought from an outside observer.

I very much appreciate your guard against & sensitivity to threats to mining (& thus bitcoin) decentralization ๐Ÿ™

To the greatest extent possible, I feel bitcoin core should relay all consensus valid transactions. Filter with another implementation.

This

Idk but they shoulda enforced it 8 years ago

Just one thing on github: i notice that comments marked as off topic can't be viewed unless you sign in (you can't even see the author).

i really appreciate your concerns for monied interests and not the users. means a lot.

in the last paragraph, is the point miners unwilling to mine transactions paying high enough fees will eventually not be economically viable if any other miners are consistently collecting those fees?

Yes

Thanks for pointing out that small pools benefit from less strict mempool policy nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqy0hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9hzumnfde4xzqpq85h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qtyz2zr . I hadn't considered that.

Do you think Bitcoin core could benefit from moving the social interactions around the repository to nostr? gitworkshop.dev features nostr based pull request and issue management for instance.

@npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr after realizing that miners who are too small to receive transactions out of band benefit from a permissive relay policy, I'm starting to wonder if DATUM and StratumV2 are the right tools for node operators to express their opinions rather than mempool policy.

Perhaps its time to stop calling our nodes "full nodes" if they aren't producing cost effective hash-rate.

Whats your take on this?

Datum and sv2 are just using whatever your mempool policy is

Selectively propagating does seem to have negative side effects.. Would it make sense for nodes to propagate all valid transactions to the peers in order to level the playing field for small miners while still applying the policy to their own hash-rate?

I'm starting to wonder if a node that doesn't produce its own hash-rate is sufficient to keep Bitcoin secure. Perhaps all node operators need to participate in consensus actively by producing hash-rate.

Except they're not making transactions, they're putting jpegs on the blockchain, which is not what bitcoin is for

Ah yes, Iโ€™m sure Bitcoin will die a slow death if Citrea canโ€™t raise the opcode limit. ๐Ÿ™„

Maybe unblock the blocked and address this issue before it gets out of hand?

I donโ€™t wanโ€™t jpegs and random shit on my node.