I think JPEGs on the timechain are stupid.

But the idea that they're going to hurt Bitcoin seems so weak to me. Like the US dollar can withstand people scribbling on it but Bitcoin can't?

In fact, the idea of Bitcoin as a glorious digital monument with some graffiti scribbled on it represents humanity pretty well. That's kind of us in a nutshell. Seems on-brand. Perfectionists trying to keep their little gardens tidy while trolls come in and find ways to mess with them anyway.

NFTs and memecoins already had their peak fad moments. People now know that they're non-scarce gambling toys rather than investments. It's just echoes of that peak now. The only thing that concerned me about the ordinals/runes period was the rapid UTXO bloat, not the blockspace usage, since the latter already has a consensus limit on it.

And if Bitcoin transactions can't outprice JPEGs in the long run, then it's just not that valuable. Bitcoin currently does about 1% of the gross settlement volume of Fedwire. That's peanuts. Imagine if it reaches a point where it does even like 10% of Fedwire. What would you pay to move a full bitcoin globally, permissionlessly, in 10 minutes, in a world where it's no longer a niche thing?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Well said.

Its an implemented attack vector, it's not about jpegs

The problem is the culture is deteriorating.

The culture is deteriorating because of custodial bitcoin- ETFs, MSTR, and Michael Saylor.

It has nothing to do with Ordinals and JPEGs.

Monetary use case is the culture. No?

I care more about self-custody and keeping full nodes accessible.

I don’t care what goes in blocks, as long as the size is limited. If monetary transactions want to be included, you have to outbid other use cases.

“I don’t care what goes in blocks”

That’s what exactly why I think the culture is deteriorating in the first place.

Would anybody even know what is going into blocks if it wasn’t for social media? Are you really monitoring the blockchain to see how many inscriptions are made?

This is all manufactured drama.

If no one care why do we have this drama/ discussion?

Social consensus matters.

We have this drama because a group of people led by Bitcoin Mechanic, Luke, and Matt Kratter have been brigading a GitHub repo to block a sensible change to Bitcoin Core.

You think you’re defending bitcoin, but you’re actually attacking it, and you don’t have the humility to engage in some self-reflection to realize that.

I could be wrong on technical things of course.

But what’s wrong to advocate for Bitcoin is money and not just a database

and at least have a gut to fight against spammers?

And how do you know core is doing this improving Bitcoin and not actually attacking it?

No one can predict unknown unknown consequences otherwise we won’t have inscription/ ordinals in the first place.

I suggest we should do nothing. But it’s core who want to push the update without social consensus.

These kind of attitudes are unacceptable

You’re not fighting spammers.

You’re incentivizing them to put their “spam” in a MORE harmful place and instead of a less harmful place.

I know Bitcoin Core is making the right decision because their reasoning is better than Mechanic, Luke and Matt Kratter.

But your side are just stirring up a bunch of useless drama, in essence sybil attacking the consensus process.

Also, treating Bitcoin Core like a uniform group isn’t how it actually works.

Core devs each have their own opinions, and code only gets merged if it has consensus amongst a large majority.

Mechanic and his allies were suspended because they were spamming this discussion, even though their concerns were addressed (multiple times) and they aren’t even contributors to the Core process.

I’m referring to consensus with the community, not within their group.

Of course they can do whatever they want, but that’s a topdown approach and not bitcoin ethos.

Plus Antoine sitting down and calling Citrea “User” and noderunners “enthusiasts” also worries me

Fine, then go use Knots.

An implementation maintained by one person who couldn’t even keep the keys to his bitcoin safe, and was pushing for a hard fork to change the bitcoin POW algorithm.

🫡

Thanks for the discussion anyways

💯 this

If you care about nodes being accessible why are you in favour of making them less accessible to people?

You know adding more unnecessary data to the blockchain will only make it harder for people to run nodes.

We have a blocksize limit.

THAT is what keeps node operations affordable, not filters.

It deteriorates if we let it. . .that's why nostr:nprofile1qy8hwumn8ghj7mn2w4khqtndv5hszythwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmny9uqzpprrqa5g5z0vzy5k06c9gnnc485gcj84qufv88k5j8ljkmaqrxhgkgzyc0 has spent so much time reinforcing the importance of the spam issue. As mass adoption progresses, by definition, the percentage of people who are even aware of the Cypherpunk mindset dwindles quickly. So those that ARE aware grow in their responsibility & importance to maintain the culture. Max Keiser & Stacy Herbert did a 10+ episode docu series on the history of Bitcoin several years ago when they were at RT. It's a great/fun watch. It's often stated that only 3% of the population won US independence from Britain. The 3% claim may be more rhetorical than precise, but the point is to emphasize the impact of a determined minority.

Never underestimate the determined miniority🤝

If necessary, consensus rules can be tightened to reduce or eliminate known methods of data storage in the chain.

That’s like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb. It’s dumb and unnecessary since policy still exists and works.

If filtering is to be deprecated, then it’s the only remaining option. And it’s not up to core.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying — Bitcoin can and should be able to handle some noise. Graffiti on the monument is fine, and yeah, it’s a pretty honest reflection of humanity.

The concern isn’t about the JPEGs themselves — it’s about the direction of the response. What worries many of us is that instead of letting node runners decide how to handle this kind of activity on their own, the current maintainers of Bitcoin Core are removing those choices. Filters that let you ignore spam? Deprecated. Settings that help lower-resourced nodes protect themselves? Quietly being raised 1000×. People who have tried to raise concerns about this issue have been banned from GitHub, including me. Not for abuse — just for disagreement.

So it’s not about “Bitcoin can’t handle scribbles.” It’s about whether people running sovereign nodes are still allowed to say, “Not on my relay.” That’s not central planning — that’s local control. And the fear is that we’re watching that get eroded.

Suppose Bitcoin can survive trolls, great. However, it should also withstand people saying 'no thanks' to troll payloads. That’s what decentralization means — not just a protocol, but permission to dissent. If we lose that, even quietly, it changes the culture of Bitcoin more than JPEGs ever could.

I'm loving this expression of concern and I agree with your above note.

But node runners have another good option to defend their rights mentioned above: Bitcoin Knots.

Similarly if something similar happens to to it too, maybe many more node implementations will show up and the protocol will survive stronger giving attackers a lesson that will be felt in their pockets.

My personal reaction ( and recommendation to anyone with same concerns) not upgrading the Core implementation and installing Knots. Vote with your Raspberry Pi the way you want and options you decide.

I'm trying to learn about it what I can, but even in my non-techy brain I grasp that yes, they're an attack on #btc because data requires space. The greater the data and need for space, the more the need to "improve/update" nodes to points where they'd become less affordable to run.

This is my understanding within the limited confines of my knowledge.

Now think about what evil people might upload, have fun validating snuff content and CP on your node.

Definitly not going to be used to go after Node operators and or blackmail them

That's beyond the scope of what I could imagine.

It scares me how truth this is!

There is no reason why an attacker couldn't do that already. Consensus allows it.

An attack like that would probably come from a govt because it would require law enforcement involvement to follow up on the threat. As soon as they get one node runner it would be obvious to everyone who the attacker is. The data could then be pruned before they could go after any significant number of node operators. No one is forced to store any data that is in op_return or witness if they don't want to.

Of course it would come from a government

Yeah and it would fail pretty hard while exposing the attacker. It's not really a credible argument for filters because it's already possible.

Hm 🤔

Welcome new pleb! You got it!

Nothing bad happens as long as someone is willing to pay for wasted storage in blocks but the block size is not increased.

We keep handing this kind of influence to mining pools and blocks getting bigger will soon be the least of our problems.

Pay whoom? Not node runners!

Of course not. It would just be a different ratio of storage usage for transaction data versus other data, assuming a constant maximum block size. It wouldn't affect node operators. There wouldn't be more traffic or storage. Transaction fees would effectively increase, but there would be a balance. Maybe I'm missing something, though...?

Didn’t we used to write “Buy Bitcoin” on US fiat?

Tick tock...

Are you running a node?

I think so too. And once people realize how valuable sats are they will be much less inclined to screw around and waste them. Like no one is making origami with $100 bills.

DAG is ipfs.io - picture running there very well..

Me as a node runner (core version 27) invested in the hardware and my time to build and run it.

In the white paper I can not see any indication that other data than transactions. Whenever I can, I'll keep to this. I also don't like the idea that possible shitty data is stored on my ssd which makes me personally vulnerable.

I want to keep my house and garden clean as possible. And I repeat, treat the node runners well.

That’s all good reasons to switch to Knots.

It gets in the timechain anyway because they fit within consensus. Node-level filtering only prevents types of spam that people aren't willing to pay for; not what they are willing to pay for (since they can go directly to miners).

So it's down to either proposing a consensus change that actually limits that stuff from getting in there, or it's mainly just performative.

Yes, I know all about this. But I feel more and more reluctant of updating my core version, which is also not a good approach.

It is like being a security guy at the door. You do what you have to do in the according situation, but there are rules and frame work you have to apply and follow. The last option in this job is to quit, which would mean I would shut down my node.

I respect nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3e8xct5wesjumn9wsq3qamnwvaz7tm4wvh8ycnj9e3xjmcdng28z greatly for all her financial knowledge and everything she is doing to move #bitcoin forward but I do think she is wrong here. We need to actively and unconditionally guard the #bitcoin garden at all costs.

Everything that is created by humans needs maintenance and safeguarding to keep it developing as intended. Bitcoin is money, which is an unavoidable human emergent technology but it is not gravity, it is not a layer 1 natural phenomenon where humans are bound to it instead of the other way around. Let's keep fighting the trolls out of our created garden. The faster the blockchain data size grows, the faster potential node runners are eliminated. Nodes are the decentralization force of bitcoin. Decentralization is what makes bitcoin. Freedom requires vigilance. Do not fall complacent and be ready to fight to protect that which matters. And this issue matters for bitcoin decentralization.

What do you all think?

#plebchain #asknostr

nevent1qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgycq459ke

That metaphor seems pretty weak and the entire position is based on it.

Wouldn’t it be more closely related to pictures within the bank databases and spreadsheets, not the notes themselves?

Nailed it.

Just curious if you are running your own node or not. Have you actually tried doing IBD on your node in last 2 years before start commenting about JPEGs?

You would have understood importance of filters in 2023 (when all of these shitcoinery on Bitcoin initially started) if you were running your own node.

Maybe you should probably stick to giving your opinions about macros.

I mean you can give an opinion on JPEGS but the more you comment about this stuff the more plebs will realize that you probably don't know anything node decentralization.

Word

Maybe you should stop blindly following what Matthew Ktatter is blowing out of his ass to all the newbie types who don't have a solid understanding of the issue. Go ahead and install Knots and protest OpenSats & the HRF if you want, you'll come around to realizing this is nowhere near as serious as you think it is.

Maybe you should eat a dick and go to Ethereum or Solana because you’re being gay.

I can't come back to such a well articulated and intelligent comment as that, truly outstanding stuff. You sir are obviously a very high IQ individual 👍

Gay boy

More plebs will realise she has a very shallow understanding of money too.

Before : We have to fix satoshi dice!!!!

Now : Oh jpeg are fine~

🤡

and the gruesome thing to know: even a pruned node does an IBD in full (you may test this with a Start9), takes now two weeks, depending on ...

And you can even see (if following in details), where the alien to bitcoin materials drop in.

Yes, we could assume, that the technical improvements (kind of Moore's law ) outdo these attempts, but still, its a burden the chain should not have to take on. If easy to forestall, let's do it!

I respect @LynAlden greatly for all her financial knowledge and everything she is doing to move #bitcoin forward but I do think she is wrong here. We need to actively and unconditionally guard the #bitcoin garden at all costs.

Everything that is created by humans needs maintenance and safeguarding to keep it developing as intended. Bitcoin is money, which is an unavoidable human emergent technology but it is not gravity, it is not a layer 1 natural phenomenon where humans are bound to it instead of the other way around. Let's keep fighting the trolls out of our created garden. The faster the blockchain data size grows, the faster potential node runners are eliminated. Nodes are the decentralization force of bitcoin. Decentralization is what makes bitcoin. Freedom requires vigilance. Do not fall complacent and be ready to fight to protect that which matters. And this issue matters for bitcoin decentralization.

Complacency implies a problem. If I perceived there to be a problem, I'd be happy to vigorously defend it.

I don't view JPEGs or anything else that takes up block space as a problem, given that there is a firm limit on block space.

The only concerning thing I see is UTXO bloat, which was mostly a temporary issue when it was a fad. It's able to be priced out. The OP Return debate doesn't contribute to UTXO bloat, which is why I put it in my "non-issue" category.

No graffiti in my node ssd. Knots helps me choose. Core doesn't.

I run Knots from now on. Simple.

I suggest you find some time to explore this side of Bitcoin and excell just you have done on others.

Remember, getting nice with shitcoiners that want to spill in my node is not a Core devs decision but MY CHOISE!

I choose Knots as long as I'm satisfied and abandoned Core.

Fullstop.

Fair. The threat of this issue can be perceived at different degrees of intensity per individual but the response to it is still a binary. You are either acting against it - meaning you are actively protecting it - or you are facilitating it - even by inaction.

There are two major problems here. Even though UTXO bloat is not a direct consequence of the usage of OP_RETURN, it is an indirect one and it’s not the only issue stemming from it.

First, the UTXO bloat is only an issue because of other spam waves - yes, waves that have been priced out but spam waves nonetheless that bitcoin is becoming more accommodating of - which only increases there reoccurrence in whatever form they may come. The social layer of bitcoin should be the first defense for these attacks. Why let adversarial agents close to your best weapon in this war? Why let them fiddle and test a few bolts? Yes, we might have a tank with a thousand tight bolts - so who cares if only one gets damaged by these non-monetary mercenaries - we still have 999 bolts that are still strong and ready when they are needed, right? Yes, but we are also one bolt weaker because of poor stewardship and lack of vigilance and vision. It’s one thing to get damaged during a legit attack, another is to get weaker by inaction.

These waves have also been funded by short term projects and interest trying to test out the waters of bitcoin. But this vector of attack can be exploited by bigger agents with more sinister motives and larger chests of wars. Why leave an opening that is fairly easy to defend? Why give intel to potential weak points to enemies? Why not actively fix the weak link in the chain?

The second point - even if this is considered just inconsequential graffiti, it is raising the threshold to be able to run a node with accesible hardware - which is an attack vector to decentralization, one of the most important aspect of bitcoin. Spam cannot fill a block more than its intended MB size, but it artificially adds data to the blockchain that now needs to be stored in nodes - forever. Nodes are volunteer - they incur in running nodes without monetary payback or incentives - why make it harder for them?

Bitcoin is man-made, it is a system that needs to be protected - it is not a greater-than-humans, force-of-nature like gravity. We need to give it maintenance and protect its design for it to work as the system was designed to work to be able to achieve its monetary end.

Even though I disagree with you here - I don’t want to appear adversarial towards you. Thanks for all your hard work on the financial side you do for bitcoin. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

OP_RETURN isn't an issue for Bitcoin. You're right about that. It's an issue for me, and anyone else who's using resources to run a node. And when software developers design software that does things I don't want it to do, they'll be treated like the other software developers that write software that does things I don't want it to do.

You're right that it doesn't have to be some big thing. But I'll definitely be glad to see more and more people finally switching over to the software that puts the control in their hands, rather than treating them as a mere user of their own hardware.

Seems like Core's got a lot of contributors though who came up in the age of the cell phone, so perhaps they don't know any better than to treat the owner of the hardware as a simple user who needs someone to protect them from themselves. Some of use find that attitude repugnant and downright disrespectful, and we'll vote with our root access.

I can’t wait to validate CSAM! Thanks pedos!

Agreed. The game theory of Bitcoin is not that it’s unattackable, it’s that attacks are unsustainable against honest use

people scribbling on usd or putting bloat on the chain are not comparable. jpegs are a fad yes, but bitcoin should be optimized for transactions not generic storage or everything shit chain like ethereum.

The issue is —they are a centralizing force by raising the compute/space requirement for running a full node. The UTXO set bloat has eliminated an entire class of low cost, ubiquitous hardware for use as a node. This aside, I support developing solutions for miner centralization as the long-term fix.

Still, natural limits and filters to mitigate (not fix) spam is a pretty normal thing to do. I’m surprised by all the takes saying we should not attempt to do so. It’s not rocket science, completely technically doable.

It is not about jpg scribbles. This is all about putting scarce tokenized natural resources on the Bitcoin blockchain in the future.

Will you please elaborate?

Due to ossification, I’m not sure we have too much choice at this point anyway.

Filters are policy. Ossification matters not as long as you run your node and have the optionality to reject and not relay junk.

just make the price of the graffiti too high

I hope you are running a node.

If not it would be pretty douchey to shrug off all the node runners who have to cater for jpegs, cause you know, catering for graffiti on possibly the most important invention of our time is “on-brand”.

I doubt she does.

Filters don’t filter out JPEGs. So your entire war on Bitcoin Core is pointless posturing.

No mention of node-runner sovereignty or UTXO bloat? Seems out of touch…

She did literally mention UTXO bloat

With every argument you keep proving to me that you fundamentally misunderstand what money is, despite having written an entire book on the subject. Bitcoin is not “just a ledger,” as you’ve claimed in the past. Bitcoin is a monetary good, a decentralized payment network, and a censorship-resistant currency all in one. It’s a full-stack monetary system, not a spreadsheet.

From economics perspective, money emerges from the market as the most saleable good. Bitcoin fits this because it optimizes for scarcity, verifiability, and portability. Turning the blockchain into a dumpster for arbitrary data directly contradicts these foundational principles. It bloats the system, undermines its monetary utility, and creates financial friction for actual users.

Bitcoin *is* the most spam-prone system in the world. That’s the price of having no centralized party to manage or steer usage. And that’s exactly why its culture has always been hostile toward non-monetary use of the blockchain. Every byte of nonsense stuffed into blocks competes with real monetary transactions, increasing fees *unnecessarily*, straining bandwidth, and degrading node accessibility. That is not neutrality, it is misallocation and *abuse*.

This isn’t a technical debate, it’s an economic one. Austrian economics warns about malinvestment (capital being misallocated due to distorted incentives). JPEGs, tokens and other data on Bitcoin are a textbook examples of that. They waste block space, misalign incentives, and sabotage the very foundation that gives Bitcoin value: its usability as money and its decentralization.

If you make it expensive or difficult to run a node, you centralize validation. Most miners don’t run full nodes or create their own block templates. They outsource that to a handful of mining pools, most of whom are already flirting with KYC and OFAC. You let guys like that dictate consensus and the 21M becomes meaningless. That’s how Bitcoin dies. Not with a bang, but with friction, complexity, creeping node centralization and ruined culture.

Your current stance is pure cope. It betrays a deep ignorance of the very economic principles you claim to understand. Bitcoin is money. Everything that weakens its monetary properties weakens the entire value proposition. As a prominent influencer loved by many Bitcoiners you should do better.

I agree with you about some of this, but I just want to point out that the filters are what's causing bandwidth strain because nodes and other miners that aren't aware of certain transactions and have to download them to validate a recently mined block. Bandwidth usage is already limited by block size and blocks are almost always full anyway, so it's not like spam would actually increase the amount of data that needs to be shared every time a block is mined. Having everyone aware of all the transactions available to be mined would reduce latency and keep the network running smoother.

As for the rest, I agree that spam is marginally detrimental to the monetary use case, but I also think it will be priced out pretty easily at higher fee rates. My current opinion is that I would like to see fees reach a higher baseline to preemptively price out spam before the filters are dropped, but I do think they should be dropped eventually.

Wrong. Suggest reading the whole post, but I pulled out the relevant part to your opinion.

nevent1qqs9glszh26df9cdhlm6w94rswczfwsnw9lx3zkv9v9sqc8z4yxaf6spupmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhj2v3swaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9ujnyvrhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekjctdwd68ytnrdakj7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6te9xgc8wumn8ghj7mnxwfjkccte9eshqup0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tjwvhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwv4u8getj0ghxxmmd9ujnyvrhwden5te0vejkuunfwgkhxtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6twp2effm

I've read that post and I know about the block reconstruction, but that doesn't address my argument about bandwidth. If everyone is running filters then nodes and miners will never see certain transactions to cache them.

Good. Then they don’t need to be seen and can just be dropped.

Until a big miner mines them...

Fair game. The problem is that the big miner would probably be a big pool that unilaterally decides what goes into blocks without respecting what the hash rate providers or node runers might want. And that’s a whole other can of worms. Hopefully FPPS will be getting less and less relevant in the future and the mining centralisation will be fixed to a good extent.

That's okay. Some wounds leave scars that we carry forever; they're part of our lives, and we must embrace them and carry on.

There is no strain on bandwidth from missed transactions (even though that also isn’t happening anyway). The transaction is downloaded either way, either when broadcast, or when added to a block. But default compact block filtering actually keeps all transactions that are valid, even those being filtered, in expectation of them being in a block.

Essentially this argument being paraded around has no example of it in reality. It’s just some theory being tossed around that kinda sounds good, imo. Transactions are downloaded by every node no matter what the relay policy is. The only question is when.

If nothing is happening and if it were happening it doesn’t matter, why change it? (OP_Return) The argument is, don’t change it.

Here comes the mop! Many Bitfluencers are paid in fiat by sponsors who make money at conventions and by selling Web3 crap. Is this related somehow?

I still think that Lyn is trying to be intellectually honest, but has much to learn about the nuances of this topic. I don’t think she’s a fiat shill, yet.

I also like listening to her. Like all of us, she is always learning and will come to grasp the situation better at her own pace.

This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. They will be lumping Lyn in with the evil core devs before too long.

I read both posts twice and I’m honestly not getting where you think she argued Bitcoin was a generic database, even though that’s the position you seem to be debating.

Her claim on the book is that *money* is a ledger system. And it is, but that also isn’t a claim that it’s a generic database. Her logic is going the other direction, not claiming what can or ought to be written on or even what that “ledger” look like, only that successful money is able to behave as a ledger system, both physical and digital forms.

I feel like half these comments aren’t responding to the specific content of the original note.

Lyn‘s note, and I paraphrase, says that we shouldn’t fight for purity because Bitcoin can withstand JPEGs. Strange perspective. I would say, always do the right thing and stand up for it. Also, Lyn argues Bitcoin is an investment, and that she will „sell“ a portion of hers back to fiat at $150,000/Btc. I would say, Bitcoin is money, a savings and a parallel system….

Come on Guy, you’re smarter than this. I know she’s your friend, but that’s not what I’m arguing about.

If money is a ledger, what is the unit in which entries on that ledger are recorded? Without a meaningful, salable monetary good, the ledger is just empty math - a glorified spreadsheet with no market value.

She wrote a 400-page book on money, defined it in a way that borders on trivial, and somehow didn’t cite Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe even once. I mean, what? That alone tells me her grasp of monetary theory is shallow at best. She treats money like a tech abstraction, ignoring the deep economic roots that give it value.

And then there’s the claim: “Scribbling on USD doesn’t ruin USD, so it doesn’t ruin Bitcoin either.” That’s not just wrong, it’s embarrassingly naive. It confuses physical defacement with systemic degradation.

When you scribble on a dollar bill, you’re not harming the monetary system. You’re just defacing a piece of paper that can be easily replaced. The dollar’s infrastructure, banking networks, clearing systems, the Fed, remains fully intact.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is its infrastructure. The timechain is the monetary system. When you cram it with JPEGs, meme tokens, and non-monetary junk, you’re not scribbling on the surface, you’re polluting the foundation. That’s permanent economic friction. And in Bitcoin, economic friction becomes consensus risk over time.

Every non-monetary use dilutes Bitcoin’s function as money. Thanks to mining centralisation that you’re well aware of, the censorship resistance is not a set in stone guarantee anymore. If you degrade the monetary premium, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value, beyond its network effects, is mostly gone.

Take silver vs. gold: silver is more “useful” as a base metal, but gold dominates as monetary commodity because it’s better suited to store value. Same logic applies here. Bitcoin’s strength is in doing one thing better than anything else: being incorruptible, decentralized money. That’s what gives it staying power.

So yes, there’s a direct correlation between “scribbling on Bitcoin” and ruining it as money. The only question is: how much scribbling does it take to ruin the system over the long haul?

P.S. I never said that she claim Bitcoin to be a general database.

"If money is a ledger, what is the unit in which entries on that ledger are recorded?"

Sounds like you read someone else talk about the book rather than read the actual book yourself. But you do you.

Yes, and we both know why you never answered any of the questions of the guy in question. But you do you.

P.S. this particular page you’ve shown doesn’t fill me with excitement about the book either.

Well let me know your feedback about the book if you ever do read it.

Otherwise, you're talking about a book you haven't read. Doesn't seem like a great use of time, but please continue.

I doubt I will. As you said, not great use of time. But aside from talking about your book, I’m open to discuss the nuances of the spam on Bitcoin and its long term implications.

Oof! Criticizing her book that you haven't even read. Damn! 😂😂

I’ve read enough of it to form a opinion. And I’ve got a pretty extensive library of books on economics and money that I can use for reference when reading bits and pieces of someone’s work. It’s kinda the reason why books have synopsises to see if you want to bother reading the whole thing or skip it entirely.

you very obviously haven't read enough of it to form an opinion.

Yep.

I think what I find interesting is how people within this community refuse to allow different viewpoints on a subject that is by definition subjective. Instead, we just call each other out as ignorant and insult each other.

Your argument is inverted, defeatist. Hence dishonest or ignorant. Why let Bitcoin get attacked? It’s not a race to the bottom, it’s a race to the top. We should always speak up and fight for what’s right. Bitcoin is money, and there are 21 million Bitcoin. Everything else is an attack vector. And we speak up when we see it.

Btw, Bitcoin is not an investment, Lyn.

The only thing I view as a potential attack is UTXO bloat, since there's no real limit to it. One can price it out, though. And the fad is greatly reduced compared its brief popular period, since people know those tokens are scams now.

Putting images or arbitrary data in it is pretty benign considering there's already a consensus block limit.

Nailed it .. it is like bitcoiners don't trust strength of #bitcoin .. sometimes devotees think God is fragile statue 😊😊

Where do I sign

nevent1qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgycq459ke

By my calculations it’s not even near 1%

Fedwire settles ~1,200 trillion every year, but Bitcoin only settled about ~3 trillion last year excluding same wallet and known exchange internal movements (according to a basic Glassnode metric I was looking at)

Making Bitcoin settlement only about 0.25% of Fedwire

But otherwise yes

nevent1qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgycq459ke

Respect the argument and criticism. Some of us do believe to be serving a noble cause.

"Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation"

By Wayne Madsen

https://www.ord.io/72990614

Since day one, I said "Cui Bono"?

Who would most benefit from the whole world suddenly hating Muslims?

Its a slippery slope.

--Core decided to ban the devs that didn't want to allow/encourage spam.

This doesn't sound like a potential problem when a group has that much control?

It does to me.

🌻

It’s not control. No one forces you to use Bitcoin Core.

The people that were banned weren’t even regular contributors to Bitcoin Core- they were brigading the GitHub repo and disrupting the discussion there. And it wasn’t even a ban, they were given temporary suspensions.

JPEGs don’t break Bitcoin — if it can’t handle a bit of graffiti, it’s not as solid as we thought. The point isn’t censorship, it’s direction. Web3 is already happening, and Bitcoin offers a unique base layer: predictable, solid, neutral. It’s a moral imperative to build on that foundation, not inside it. Lightning, Liquid, RSK, Stacks… that’s the path if we want innovation without sacrificing sovereignty.

It’s good for Bitcoin’s resilience. What hurts it and is short term is the idiotic solutions such as dev division and running different version to filter something that can’t be filtered by nodes anyway.

An empty post, as stupid as people that liked it.

There were endless discussions about the current spam and its implications, you did not address any

I haven't seen many arguments worth addressing. They seem to rely on bearish long-term assumptions about monetary demand. So my advice to them is generally to sell it then?

The biggest technical concern I see is UTXO bloat, which the current op return drama doesn't contribute to. And the rapid UTXO bloat seems behind us now since it was based on a fad.

I view the node-level filtering for consensus transactions that entities are willing to pay for as being mostly performative. Node-level filtering works well for denial-of-service type attacks, not things that people are willing to pay for, since they only have to find one miner to accept it. If that type of filtering makes people feel better then I'm for it, but without consensus changes it's pretty trivial. It's good that people can fork and run their own node software, so it's a nice network-wide reminder of that option, but it doesn't meaningfully impact what gets into the timechain.

I heard that under race conditions the miner whose block is propagated by more nodes wins.

Focusing solely on fee hikes in the inscription-spam debate overlooks the real issue: culture.

Bitcoin’s power lies in being a pure monetary network, and tacking on metaprotocols—NFTs, tokens, JPEGs—distracts developers and erodes its core purpose.

Yes, miners could be bribed to include spam, but if the network as a whole rejects this practice, venture capitalists won’t fund those meta-protocols.

Finally, Taproot’s introduction of MAST was a huge win—by only revealing the spending script, it slashes on-chain data. Abusing Taproot to scatter JPEG fragments across the chain undermines that benefit and represents a serious misstep in Bitcoin’s evolution.

Last but not least, sorry for the tone I used in my previous post. I am just very disappointed right now at smart people not seeing ANY issue with the current state of the Network and its development.

So when filters are adopted by the non-malicious noders, the problem is solved?

No the problem won't be solved, as unfortunately there is no way to prevent spam in ANY protocol since spam is by definition a protocol-valid-operation.

Protocols handle spam with spam filters that mitigate the problem instead.

So how to exclude data defined as spam from a valid block provided via the protocol?

Since spam transactions are protocol-valid, nodes must accept any valid block—even if it contains spam.

Our spam filters are designed to:

- Discourage VC investment in meta-protocols

- Signal to miners that we prefer not to include these transactions

Please note that MARA (via Slipstream) is currently the only miner processing non-standard transactions, but they appear likely to discontinue the service soon.

So discourage means: restricting someone

And

Signalling to miners: asking them for permission

This does not compute, for me.

> So discourage means: restricting someone

If you don't understand that this does not make sense, there is not much to discuss anymore.

Are you describing an actual 'liberal democracy'?

Or does that mean that fees are not already signal? And filters means signal on top of signal, correct?

This comes across as cope.

A dollar bill can be scribbled on to a point it is no longer usable as money and a monument can be defaced so badly it is no longer recognisable.

We've seen what happens when you reduce efforts against people who attack our monuments and open the door to them. They pull them down and throw them in rivers, or melt them down in furnaces, destroyed forever.

When some radicals attack your monuments you don't throw your hands up and say maybe it just wasn't as valuable as we thought, you increase patrols and throw out harsh penalties to make it harder for them.

Core are doing the former and trying to negotiate with terrorists instead of the latter and telling them to fuck off and doing what they can to prevent harm.

It the same suicidal altruism and cowardice that has destroyed the West playing out here. Grow a backbone and defend the good thing we have before it's ruined.

One does not need cope if one does not perceive a problem. I'm bullish on bitcoin as it is.

I think it's as valuable as we thought. However, when I see arguments that JPEGs are a problem, I can only assume they fear it's not as valuable as they thought. Otherwise I don't think they'd view it as a problem.

I would oppose consensus changes to make it easier to put more non-monetary stuff into the timechain. But that's not what Core has proposed; they just don't see a purpose to make relaying more restrictive than what can be mined.

Attempting to filter what people are willing to pay for and what fits within current consensus, is a pretty Sisyphean activity in my view.

Yeah lets prioritize miners over nodes, that will lead to great outcomes

Hey Lyn we all love and respect you. Yes Consensus is the backbone .

But don’t you think that the culture and the node level policies are extremely important too?

Culture is important because it can affect consensus.

Node level policies are mostly non-impactful for things that people are willing to pay for. I think they give people a false sense of power, like they're having an impact that they're not really having.

Isn’t that when nodes with filters becoming dominant, at some point miners risk getting punished when they mine spams ? because they get orphaned more likely whenever two blocks are mined at the same time like once in one or two weeks

There are plenty of people much more knowledge and articulate than I am who have done an excellent job explaining why ignoring spam, and in this case enabling it, is a massive problem. I think it's imperitive that someone in your position takes the time to hear the opposing case (if you haven't already) considering 10% of node runners have already switched to Knots in the wake of this. nostr:nprofile1qqsz39wrxrpr7wp3jmqwlxydumdg8wpmgkp76huurmds54vuangljqqpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezu6rfve5hx6pwdaexwqg5waehxw309ahx7um5wgejuctrw3hzu6t08ln29e and nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshscy566r in particular are worth taking the time to listen to.

Even if these spam attacks only come in waves and then disappear they are still massively harmful. I don't need to tell you fiat money is infinite and this means that funding these scams will go on as long as the money printer exists. If a new wave of jpeg tokens push up fee prices then vendors in poor countries have to compete with that rubbish to manage lightning channels and any other number of issues. That doesn't mean we don't think it's valuable, it means we think it's too valuable to be abused like this.

What can be mined is currently decided by less than 10 entities which in itself is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Spam can only be mined as easily as it is because pools have so much control they can make guarantees to include it in blocks they know they will find and control the template for. Mining needs to be much more decentralised and in that scenario 99% of what can be mined will be the default mempool policy of Core, which should be aggressively filtering spam not bending the knee to it.

Filtering has always been a part of bitcoin and is clearly effective as 99% of what is in blocks falls into the default mempool policy of Core. Spam is a continuous arms race but it is one where every time they find a new attack we can easily create a new filter and crush that particular scam and they have to explain to their investors why they need to build monkey jpeg viewer v15. It is a battle that is always worth fighting.

Also I apologise if I came across as disrespectful in my first response. I have massive respect for your work but I just think you are wrong on this and we cannot afford for someone as influential as you are to be complacent about what is happening here.

Filters don’t prevent the harm, at all.

They make the problem WORSE, by discouraging them from putting the spam in the least harmful place- OP_RETURN.

If you’re broke like most people around the world it won’t matter how bad you want to transact.

The real issue is not so much expensive fees, but rather the bloating of the UTXO set, which is bad on its own, but also raises the hardware requirements needed to run a full node. Being able to run a full node is one of the things that makes bitcoin unique and special. There are other harms from JPEGs and CORE changing the default settings that makes it easier for more spam to end up on the network.

I really don’t know how you keep missing the point on these issues.

Try running a node from scratch with a Raspberry Pi and tell me how it goes. Then tell me how that is not s negative for decentralization and Bitcoin as a network

I don't think running node on Raspberry pis is the way into the future. They're meant for tinkerers, not a multi trillion network

You can get more powerful used x86 computers for much cheaper than a raspberry pi. Does anyone still think using a raspberry pi for a node is a good idea?

That’s not the point

The fact that we could run a node on such crappy hardware kids use in school meant the network could be extremely decentralized.

And raspberry pi used to be cheap. I'm just staying you can still run a node for pretty cheap. Yes, the hardware demands will go up slowly, but it's not the end of decentralization as we know it.

And that happened with filtering on the nodes. So that shows it didn't help. Unlocking op return can only make it easier for low power nodes to process the blockchain.

Your solution to less spam on the network is less filters? Mmm ok

I thought you were concerned about running nodes on low cost hardware?

I want the cost to run a node to be low

I also don’t want to relay and store spam in my mempool

I guess the best thing I can do is direct you to re-read the post you responded to, since I did reference UTXO bloat as a problem.

However, neither node-level filtering nor OP return limits affect UTXO bloat.

Absolutely. Here’s a speculative, Bitcoin-centered reimagining of The Decline of Sterling—mirroring Catherine Schenk’s chapter structure but projecting it into a future where Bitcoin supplants the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency:

---

Part I: Reconstructing the Post-Dollar Monetary Order, 2024–2032

Chapter 2: The Fraying of the Bretton Woods II System (2024–2026)

Chronicling rising global debt, weaponization of the dollar via sanctions, and diminishing trust in U.S. fiscal discipline. Nations begin seeking alternatives to SWIFT and the eurodollar system. Bitcoin gains traction in parallel financial rails (e.g., Lightning, stablecoin hedges).

Chapter 3: The Rise of Bitcoin Convertibility (2026–2032)

Bitcoin transitions from a store of value to a transactional asset as major economies legalize and integrate BTC payment rails. Central banks accumulate BTC in sovereign wealth reserves. El Salvador becomes an early case study; BRICS nations follow.

---

Part II: Accelerating the Retreat: The Dollar in the 2030s

Chapter 4: The Dollar and Fragmented Globalism

The U.S. attempts to retain financial hegemony while new regional blocs (e.g., BRICS+, GCC, ASEAN+) adopt BTC-settled trade deals. The IMF’s SDRs lose relevance; Bitcoin-denominated trade begins to rise.

Chapter 5: The 2031 Dollar Crisis: The Fed, the Treasury, and the New IMF

A major U.S. debt crisis sparks capital flight. The Fed's interventions become inflationary. A Bitcoin-backed liquidity fund is created by a coalition of non-Western nations. The IMF begins modeling synthetic BTC instruments.

Chapter 6: Wall Street vs. the Protocol

Wall Street firms tokenize assets and issue Bitcoin-tracked derivatives. Tensions emerge between permissioned blockchains and Bitcoin’s open architecture. The battle resembles London’s City grappling with post-empire decline.

---

Part III: The Dollar’s Final Retreat, 2040–2050

Chapter 7: Multilateral Negotiations: Bretton Woods III and the Protocol Layer

G20 and BIS organize a new monetary order. Instead of pegging to a fiat reserve, nations peg to BTC’s protocol via Layer 2 networks. Smart contract-enforced monetary rules become standardized.

Chapter 8: The 2044 Bitcoin Accords

Major central banks formally disclose BTC holdings. Trade settlements occur via state Lightning nodes. The dollar retains use in domestic U.S. finance, but is sidelined globally—analogous to sterling post-1968.

Chapter 9: The End of the Petrodollar System

OPEC+ prices oil in BTC, ending 80 years of dollar supremacy in energy. U.S. loses final leverage point. The Fed becomes inward-facing; U.S. policy turns isolationist.

Chapter 10: Conclusion – The First Decentralized Reserve Currency

Bitcoin's emergence reframes monetary sovereignty as a software standard. Power shifts from states to networks. The dollar fades not from collapse, but managed retreat—mirroring sterling’s quiet exit a century earlier.

---

Would you like this written up as a future-history style essay or formatted into a fake book preface?

Correct. A consensus change rolling back both Tap Root and SegWit might

Why are bitcoin enthusiasts so bearish on Bitcoin?

extreme boredom

one of the unforeseen downsides of holding the best currency in human history and enjoying deflation

Maybe not every Bitcoin enthusiast is a hopium addicted think boi.

They’re easily whipped by maxi influencers like Mechanic and Matt Krater into a crusade.

Absolutely agree. The people following Kratter seem particularly naive/gullible.

He’s very one-sided in his coverage of this issue.

Lots of Nostr-ers in the replies don't understand how bitcoin works fundamentally, and it is very telling.

I don't know what's more impressive. The urge of those people to censor transactions that are completely valid, or the fact that they think they can have any effect whatsoever?

I assume you use email with spam filters turned off? I mean those spam emails are valid messages according to the protocol right? Why should they be censored? Some spam will alway get through anyway.

Here is the thing - even if you do turn the filters off, the amount of spam you will get is far less due to the fact that would be spammers know that most others do have the filters on. Email would be completely unusable if spammers knew their activitoes were blessed, even encouraged by the main email providers.

The email analogy is completely idiotic. The chain is not your email account, and you do not get to decide what goes into it. Block size is the only factor that can reliably prevent what you think your mempool policy prevents.

Spammers can configure their nodes to directly talk with mining pools, or even just directly send the tx to some web page, if that's even too much hassle for them. You think you'll have prevented spam, but in reality, you'll just accept it normally once it gets confirmed in the next block.

And technicalities aside, you're simply pushing us further toward censorship. There's no universal definition of what constitutes "spam". You just don't like JPEGs, and instead of accepting the network's inefficiencies as a tradeoff for zero trust, like an adult bitcoiner, you've taken it upon yourself to act as the sole arbiter of what qualifies as spam.

I do (or should) get to decide what my node relays. The email analogy is not perfect but pretty good, Google, Microsoft, ISPs and anyone that runs an SMTP replay are the 'node operators' of email. They all filter spam, if they didn't no one would use email.

The argument that filters do nothing because determined spammers can just go direct to miners (and pay much more) is nonsense. If that is the case why do they want to remove the filters? Clearly they do do something, they make it harder and more expensive to spam.

'No universal definition of spam' is also complete by gaslighting nonsense. Email marketers (like Lopp in his early career) say the same thing, but everyone knows spam when they see it. Just because we can't agree on a perfect definition doesn't mean allowing all spam is good idea. Hint: JPGs are spam.

> The argument that filters do nothing because determined spammers can just go direct to miners (and pay much more) is nonsense.

No, it's not. You can just download a libre relay and send anything to a mining pool like MARA pool. "Spammers" pay a premium to MARA, for as long as other mining pools choose to censor their transactions. If enough revenue is generated by those "spammers", I'd expect more pools to start relaxing their mempool policies. Absolutely no transaction has ever been censored because of the way this network works.

In short, it's not your mempool policy that makes the difference, it's Foundry's, Antpool's, ViaBTC, F2Pool etc.

> If that is the case why do they want to remove the filters?

Because 1) it does make it more comfortable for people with these transactions to be part of the network and 2) it makes your transaction fee calculation more accurate.

You miss the point. Yes spammers can go direct to miners. But it costs them more and requires more effort, as you then admit 'it males it more comfortable for people with these transactions to be part of the network'. I do not want to make it more comfortable for spammers I want the network to be as hostile to them as possible.

The fee estimate point is FUD, even if it were an issue it would be a price well worth paying, but it is simply not an issue. See Mechanics explanation for details, but my understanding is it only affects those using an outdated method of estimating fees anyway.

I do miss the point, indeed. The point I miss is that the problem is people who don't want to accept the inefficiencies of a decentralized network and its inevitable role as a data later, but want to meddle with it, causing unintended consequences, because they place themselves as arbiters of truth.

The mempool issue isn't FUD. If you have a different mempool than the mining pool's, then your fee estimation is less accurate. That should be fairly straightforward to grasp.

The more you try to censor dataonly transactions, the more you push them to transform into forms that are indistinguishable from regular transactions, and then it'll be even worse for all of us, because they'll bloat the UTXO set with millions of unspendable UTXO.

It's core that want to meddle with it by removing a filter that was clearly working pretty well. We just want them to leave it alone. Removing control from nodes and pandering to spammers is the biggest long term threat to bitcoin IMO.

Thank you for your point of view, i agree that #bitcoin transaction *should* be enough high to avoid jpeg on blockchain.

But we are not speaking only about jpeg but every other use that could delay transactions.

Nakamoto has a vision for #bitcoin and he explained and made his vision a reality.

We are not "fighting" here to know if a block can handle or not some extra data like jpeg.

We are "fighting" here to know if the blockchain is enough secure for futures attacks.

You know attacks like "put your birthdate and name on the blochain for 15$" for the newbee.

And the operator that want to do that just need few space for 15$ to do it (but with a lot of customer it could take a lot of space in a block).

Perhaps it is a stupid example.

Perhaps it will not happen this way.

But be sure that if there is no filter and just a "hope" that spam will be stopped by fees, it is a big lack of vision.

#bitcoin is used to transfer value from a wallet to another, it has be built for this use and it is more and more use for this with time.

If you don't have any vision about how to preserve that, it will be a huge danger for the legit transactions in future.

When the perfect high value spam will delay legit transactions because they will find a way to make their spam enough valuable to be push in the blockchain.

And it is not acceptable that fees would be over-high for legit transactions.

I am not saying you can't put "extra data" on the blockchain, but it MUST be a way to preserve legit transaction and not only rely on fees.

It is a lack of vision to just "hope" it will be enough.

Thanks for your share.

#btc4ever

nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uea5z4g thoughts?

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuat5dpshy6ewvdhk6tcpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezum3dw35jumt99unyqedn agree?

The dollar scribbling analogy breaks down immediately. A doodle on a bill does not affect what the rest of the dollar network needs to remember before each transaction. JPEG on Bitcoin, on the other hand, is pollution externalized onto the property of node runners against their will, pollution they need to forever store and pay for.

Do you hold the view that monetary demand will persistently remain low enough that JPEG inserters will be able to outcompete monetary transactors and/or take up basically unused space (and by extension, that there will continue to be otherwise cheap and unused space from monetary transactors)?

And do you view node-level filtering for what entities are willing to pay for as being likely successful at any point over the next several years?

I try to focus on making good decisions, decisions that don't lead to fatal outcomes even when the predictions are off. So allow me to modify your questions slightly before answering.

Can monetary demand for blockspace remain persistently low? Yes. Even in a world on the Bitcoin standard, sidechains can pick up enough load such that JPEG inserters remain a problem. We should be ready for a scenario in which demand remains low enough for long enough, even if we don't believe this is very likely.

For your second question, if enough node operators wake up then yes. (After all, where is the economic incentive for node operators to put up with spam?) Otherwise, there would be a centralizing effect due to increasing hardware requirements. Node-level filtering has basically been highly successful in keeping spam out for Bitcoin's entire existence minus the last two years. It should return to being so.

You made the mistake of being correct. Now, the 🦗🦗🦗 will follow.

I love you!

“JPEGs on the timechain” what a line haha.

I just don't want to have any part in relaying spam. Not with my node. If it gets in the blockchain then fine, there's nothing I can do about it, but up until that point I want nothing to do with it.

🙈

On 2023/Oct Lyn: Shitting on jews hurts Bitcoin and crypto

On 2025/May Lyn: Bitcoin core is just irrelevant to Bitcoin lets skip that discussion

Me 2025/May: stick to fiction lyn

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qyfhwumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetn9uq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwddsk6upwwd5hgef0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgyca0ecyf

On 2023/Oct Lyn: Shitting on jews hurts Bitcoin and crypto

On 2025/May Lyn: Bitcoin core is just irrelevant to Bitcoin lets skip that discussion

Me 2025/May: stick to fiction lyn

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qyfhwumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetn9uq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwddsk6upwwd5hgef0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgyca0ecyf

What are you talking about?

you completely dismissed core

sorry it took me a while to dig up the jews stuff

quote from you:

"The world is an increasingly polarized place, and my biggest concern is for those polarizations to be used to take rights away in a more broader context, or to wage war between larger opponents. Politicians will propagandize any small share of “crypto funding” to bad groups to justify more restrictions on those technologies and privacy in general."

I think you forgot to mention that by default any financial restrictions opens the door for more opportunities in a more efficient black market that nurtures the moral of words of honor and its way better for individuals in a long term financial prespicteve, and that been the case for ages (me and my family/relatives always used such services)

I guess you forgot that because you were traumatized sympathizing with thieves and killers from Jewish beliefs

nevent1qqs28dasrkag2gk03ryx0g0kqm54hzcsvfpmgezfyypv7sya87cyk9czyr4tpe6k6v4cp0x5vneas39cqspsxp66z04tcdve5a3vntr6hy057qcyqqqqqqgjhqnxe

Well put analogy.

Time to nostr:nprofile1qqsqlxufmc0zqz2lr6ytvym9vyxzjmndc6w5k3dlw3ajhuaags2el6cpremhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumhd9ehxmrfva58gmnfdenjumn9wsq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5tuaaqc ?

That is why you put the JPEGs on the Zenon Network, Lightning Networks successor.

Alternatively, store images and other files on the Interplanetary File System.

Nah my node will filter those stupid pictures

Well said!

We can price JPEGs (spam) out by running our own nodes and enforcing rules that matter. Bitcoin L1 is for money, not memes. They can live on another layer. 🗣️

All it takes is to access one miner that'll stick those things in there, and it bypasses all of the node filtering.

No one is saying filters are 100% effective. People still put up walls and fences even tho you can jump over them. We should make it harder not easier for people to abuse the network

Not if enough nodes enforce a new set of rules, right?

Miners can pack any valid tx into a block, but nodes are the refs enforcing the rulebook. If a majority of us agrees JPEG spam is out of bounds, we can tweak the official rules and miners have to play ball.

The miner which is doing this, risks slower block propagation through the open relay network and by that risk of an orphaned block. This gives the majority of the hashrate a positiv economic incentive to mine what nodes signal to be mined through their relay policy. It doenst mean there will be never blocks with garbage, but that was never the case anyway.

Why is that point always glossed over?

It's always about incentives. Node runners are still free to determine what's get filtered. Miners are free to determine which transaction they mine.

If enough node runners are fed up with a bloated mempool on their node, they should take action and this in turn will incentivize miners to consider the risk of slower block propagation.

Lynn's point does raise a valid about the cost of transactions that need to disincentivize jpeg's over valid tx's.

In times with low tx volumes, jpeg bloat provides extra income stream for miners. While in times of high tx volumes, jpeg bloaters will think twice if the cost of their monkey pics are worth it.

Your mempool is a fixed size and your node drops transactions from mempool based on fees keeping only the highest fees that fit into the fixed size.

The block size and 10 minute target time also don't change.

That means no larger mempool or node resources needed for a stream of full blocks of JPGs than a stream of full blocks of monetary transactions.

The biggest issue with Bitcoin is bloat.

And now you want to add more bloat?

Seems unreasonable.

It sounds like you didn't read my post.

👍💯

It's a burden on volunteer node operators when people leverage the network to store 'rubbish JPEGs,' effectively seeking free, perpetual storage and making node operation more expensive. This feels dishonest. If you're contributing to this, perhaps consider switching from Bitcoin Core to Knots.

This makes no sense. The blocksize limit is what keeps operating a node affordable. Not mempool filters.

Feds salivating over the aiding & abetting of CSAM JPEGs onto the timechain, to put full-blockchain-keeping bitcoiners in prison for 18 USC 2252.

80 bytes

Ayeeeeeeee!!!! Yup!

This is a tough one for me. This is a meme I have feared spreading for years (out of cowardice), however it seems it is time to start shouting this one loudly since people just don’t seem to get there on their own —or this is their endgame. I thought the adversarial thinkers would get there en masse… I will not run a pedo-node. I will do everything I can to support the financial use case for Bitcoin, not the arbitrary, decentralized data storage network. I understand some data will slip through, but make it exceedingly difficult and not the norm!

Yo, I feel ya on that struggle! 🤔 But like, what’s the game plan here? How do we flip the script and make sure folks get the real deal without all that noise? Let’s get this convo poppin’! 💬💥 #Bitcoin #AdversarialThinking

I’m all about figuring out a way of getting this some traction… but this is also a zero-day exploit, so it requires some finesse. Glad to hear that there are others out there that see this as an attack vector!

The fee market does not address this problem!

Storing illegal data on other people’s computers forever is more valuable to some people than any monetary transaction is to most others.

It seems that people overlook this because they don’t notice all the walls, both physical and digital, that are in place to isolate certain black markets from general markets. There are a surprising amount of filters on the internet to protect people from stumbling into various hellholes.

Bitcoin currently has similar walls, but people don’t realize how important they are because Google refuses to show all the insane search results that can be returned for even the most innocent search terms.

This could end with a “hide your Bitcoin node under your floorboards” era of Bitcoin. It’ll be SO FUN, and we’ll find out who the hardcore cypherpunks are.

A ton of notifications just appeared...

I wonder how legally beneficial it would be, to run a node that only maintains the blockchain for your own Electrum server on the same host, and then only that Electrum server accepts incoming connections from Electrum wallets. Concurrently, all non-localhost incoming connections to the Bitcoin software itself get settings-blocked by maxconnections=0, so no blockchain-embedded illegal data can be downloaded P2P.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the config of Electrum servers & everything can be accessed remotely.

So we should make it easier to spam? This makes no sense. Does it really help nation state and institutional adoption if bitcoin has a reputation of being a dumping ground for JPGs and scams? We still have an uphill battle to persuade governments that bitcoin is trustworthy, encouraging spam doesn't help.

Filters don’t stop JPEGs.

If you start filtering valid transactions, your mempool is not going to reflect the actual content of blocks. This has a ton of negative consequences.

In practice they do. Yes spammers can pay more or go to more effort to go direct to rouge miners but that does not mean we should abandon all attempts to limit spam.

Your second paragraph reveals the problem with your thinking. It is the nodes that are in charge, miners should respect node runners preferences not the other way around. Nodes Mempool filtering (which they have always done) is a signal of our preferences to the miners. Thanks to miner pool centralisation, individual rouge miners are able to ignore the nodes wishes and put unwanted junk in the blocks. The fact that mining has become this centralised gives us bigger problems anyway but that's another issue.

If we accept that nodes no longer have a say in the content of the Mempool then bitcoin is dead and we might as well let the big two mining pools run everything. Then we have become ethereum or any other shitcoin.

Filters WORSEN mining centralization. That’s the entire point. You’re attacking bitcoin, all over nothing.

Mempools don’t determine bitcoin, it’s the consensus rules.

So you believe the miners control bitcoin not the nodes?

No, I didn’t say that.

You right now:

It was a question not a statement. I'm trying to understand the origin of your view that nodes preferences about what should be in blocks doesnt matter at all.

Economic nodes determine the consensus rules of bitcoin aka what is valid. Miners determine what transactions go into blocks.

But we’re discussing mempool policy, not consensus rules.

Nodes cannot prevent a valid transaction from being sent to a miner.

Technically true.. So why do spammers want the filters removed?

Nodes can make it harder and more expensive to spam the network. That's why they want the filters removed.

No, the expense will NOT be more, long term.

Miners will build out proprietary infrastructure (like slipstream), and over time that expense will fall to basically zero.

But that has demonstrably negative effects on bitcoin as a whole.

So rather than fix the problem we just give in to spammers? There is no reason to believe that out of band transactions will ever cost the same as legitimate transactions.

Meanwhile we need to work aggressively to fix the miner centralisation problem. Making bitcoin a spam friendly space in the meantime will do enormous harm, not just in reducing decentralisation but in the public perception of bitcoin. You want institutional and nation state adoption and the number go up that goes with it? If bitcoin becomes a cesspool of spam and scams like ethereum or solana the chance of that goes down massively.

If you want non-monetary transactions on bitcoin thats fine but don't also expect bitcoin to become the base layer of money worldwide.

Are you listening to anything I’m saying?

You are WORSENING miner centralization.

Filtering harms bitcoin in a multitude of ways, and for no good reason- it has negligible effect on the “spam” you hate so much.

You’re trying to design bitcoin based on ideology, not logic.

And you’re not just worsening bitcoin for “spammers” you’re actually harming its use as money, which heavily depends upon a public mempool that we can use to accurately estimate transaction fees.

Everything you’re doing is based on emotion, not reason; you’re so blinded by your hatred of shitcoins, you’re willing to damage bitcoin just act like a tough pure bitcoin maxi.

I'm listening but I don't think you are. It's perfectly logical to not make bitcoin a safe space for spammers. Node must have a say in what goes into blocks, giving up and ceeding all control to miners, which is what removing the ability of nodes to filter will do, will be the end of bitcoin in the long run. The ONLY thing that makes bitcoin unique (other than first mover advantage, network effects etc) is that its nodes can be run by ordinary users. The nodes signal to the miners what they want them to do. The fact that miners can currently ignore them is the problem that needs to be fixed (by decentralising mining), the solution is not to just give up all control to the miners. If that happens we are effectively ethereum.

Its about blockchain size though ✌🏻

Block size and block rate were unaffected by the proposed change to op_return. That means blockchain size is also unaffected.

There was never a way Bitcoin wins where blocks aren't basically always full.

False, the size of full blocks if bigger than blocks that are not full.

The second statement is just simply wrong.

There will allways be an insentive to mine, even with no rewards and empty blocks.

This post is a mess of "I spoke with confidence so you must believe me no matter how clear it is I didn't think at all"

Have you considered being a politician? I think you'd be perfect for the role.

I am happy to elaborate, if you tell me what you think is wrong with the statement.

Entities are already now mining bitcoin while not beeing profitable. Supporting the network / receiving prestine btc. I expect that the unprofitable part of the hashrate will rise as btc goes mainstream.

You didn't do any reasoning or elaborate at all when you declared I was wrong. You think I'm dumb enough to let you set the rules that I have to use reason and be able to defend my position when you can't or won't?

This ain't xitter. There are real people here with IQs above room temp. Do better.

No, it’s hype for nonsense 😀

جالبه این مثال نقاشی روی اسکناس که لین درباره‌ی اسپم زنجیره بهش اشاره می‌کنه، چند هفته ‌پیش در جلسه‌ی صوتی گروه سیمرغ درباره‌ی OP_RETURN به ذهنم اومد و مطرح کردم.

https://t.me/bitcoinarticlesfarsi/335

nostr:nevent1qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgycq459ke

Wow touchy subject you brought up

I am not running a full node and if I was, I think I would disagree with you and opt for a fork that focuses Bitcoin on transactions only as that is what it is for

Bitcoin Knots solves this problem without a fork using filters.

"What would you pay to move a full bitcoin globally, permissionlessly, in 10 minutes, in a world where it's no longer a niche thing?"

Answer: ZERO

Expensive fees can be better used to stack sats. We want Bitcoin only as digital currency not meme. In a huge city, bitcoiners community build architecture others just draw graffiti.

I recommend you close your eyes and listen closely to Bitcoin Mechanic and the words he uses. You might come away with a different perspective.

Don't want to single out nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytndv9kxjm3wdahxcqg5waehxw309ahx7um5wfekzarkvyhxuet5qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncdhu7e3 , but I wonder if some people being publicly all nonchalant about spam are mostly scared about taking a stand, showing they care, and thus becoming vulnerable to being made fun of by spammers who understand Bitcoin on a deeper technical level than them.

It's easier showing you care and defending your point about Bitcoin when the opposition are confused Keynesians, that are already incapable of presenting a somewhat logical understanding of economics .. and even less capable of arguing about Bitcoin on a technical level.

But when arguing against spam apologists that understand C++ and Script better than you, likely, they'll dunk on your for some technical error you'll make .. but honestly, who cares about getting dunked on by someone like Udi .. no front .. but that's just some fat dude (that probably still can't bench 225 for reps) scamming retail noobs with JPEGs.

I've never had it happen to me because I'm irrelevant but is it really that scary when a bunch of spam apologists dogpile you for a technical error you made?

#asknostr #knots #spam #bitcoin

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qyfhwumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetn9uq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwddsk6upwwd5hgef0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgyca0ecyf

If nothing is happening and if it were happening it doesn’t matter, why change it? (OP_Return) The argument is, don’t change it.

And did you feel better after that ?

You could also do a graffiti on the white house, in his memory.

🤙🏼

it's a technical issue, not a disliking of nfts

100% Also, I personally reserve the right to refuse U.S. dollars that are defaced by graffiti.

All I want is software that will allow me to make the choice for myself whether to pay any attention to arbitrary data or not - and not to have to worry about the software changing that choice on my behalf every time I perform an update.

Since most people will never own a full Bitcoin, much less multiple, your "what would you pay to..." sounds like an online marketer. You're an intelligent person. Do better to hide your elitism.

Nice username

I'm starting to thing thay you and others are under the payroll of MARA.

No.

I just analyzed the arguments by people like Greg Maxwell and Pieter Wuille, analyzed the arguments by those trying to filter, and came to my conclusions on the matter.

Imagine that. Being a confident independent thinker using critical examination to come to your own conclusion.

Remember Jeff words Lyn, descentralized and secure. Large mining pools must be taken down. Don't be an advocate for this disaster. Knots is the way to go. The backlash from us, the node runners, can't be ignored at this point.

Is that so? Haven't heard you explain how slower block confirmations is a deterrent to miners including spam in blocks.

Is it the case that the current world order with regard to the dollar being the world reserve currency is breaking down?

The tariffs and the sanctions and the increasing fragility of the treasury market makes me wonder if cross border Capital flows are signaling that it is

The Sterling went away [it took several decades] and the dollar took over and then the dollar changed a couple times from gold to oil to ... whatever it is now

So now it's [apparently, maybe] time for a new financial system to take over the planet again like it does every 50 years or so

What are the odds that it will be bitcoin based?

But, they do take extra blockspace, which makes running a node more costly. Unfortunately, Taproot increased that consensus limit, allowing more exploitation.

I guess my question... why not still try to limit the graffiti, rather than encourage it? "We can't eliminate every piece of graffiti" seems a pretty lame response to not try.

Will it destroy Bitcoin? Probably not. We've got a very determined community. We'll find a way to run nodes even if the costs to do so go up. But, it would be MUCH better if that cost didn't go up, and more people ran nodes.

Segwit increased the block size limit, not Taproot.

If it makes people feel better to not relay graffiti, then all the power to them. However, I do think it's largely performative, not going to have a tangible effect on the amount of graffiti that ends up in the system (just like it hasn't for the past 2 years), and thus is kind of a false promise and unproductive use of mental resources.

It’s not about feeling better or not. There is no incentive for nodes to relay or store spam in their mempool. There’s nothing performative about it. It’s already had a tangible effect, but ok

You can't eliminate the use of reversible steganography to enter data into bitcoin, so any promise of a filter is a lie, study this. the block has a space limit that cannot be exceeded and even if you filled everything with "op_return" the block would be smaller than 1MB vs 4MB of segwit.

Maybe cloudflare could weigh in?

"so any promise of a filter is a lie"

Not unless you're meaning 100% effective filters (which would be kind of disingenuous, right?). Filters obviously work. They are used in real world and tech, extensively.

No sir, bitcoin has rules, basically these rules are measured in consensus parameters and it asks you to pay a fee, bitcoin is an accounting ledger with data, you can use reversible steganography to enter images with the data chopped into pieces as multiple fake multi-signature outputs, without having to use ordinals or op_return, this protocol exists and is called stamps, if you want to filter stamps you have to prohibit multi-signatures, that the outputs of a transaction are more than 2 and a lot of things, basically playing cat and mouse and affecting legitimate users who use bitcoin for wanting to play at being a central entity that wants to control transactions that it does not like even if they comply with the rules and pay their fees.

🚀💎🚀

With respect , . It doesn’t seem like JPEGs on the blockchain would be the same as scribbling on a dollar. I’m new to this yet my understanding is it becomes permanent on the blockchain? Messing up a body with toxins seems counter intuitive to me💫

With reflection ..

uncensored > censored

rough consensus > forks

knowledge > opinion

I don’t really understand the technicals of the situation well enough to be able to weigh in on this debate. But what has made the decision easy for me is how the developers of Bitcoin Core have been conducting themselves.

Running Knots on my node now.

A timechain full of child porn that no one can stop or remove hands significant ammo to anti-bitcoin politicians. Why wouldn’t we do all we can to prevent that…even if we couldn’t block all spam?

There’s already been illicit content on every bitcoin node for years now… accept it and move on.

Nope. I won’t accept it. I’ll fight it. I switched to Knots where I have a greater control over my node. Not sure why you wouldn’t want to limit child porn on the blockchain, unless you’re into that kind of thing … maybe Core is.

The effort you put into blocking this sort of thing with your node is completely fucking useless. Put equivalent effort into attacking the problem at the root.

How much effort does it take to run Knots instead of Core and choose my settings? I’ve already made the switch, and I can tell you it doesn’t take much. Making this change ISN’T useless. No, my one node won’t do much to fix this issue (beyond my node), but I voted with my feet by leaving Core over an issue that’s important. Each node operator can cast their own vote regarding this issue based on which software they choose to run. The ability to choose is an important right…and the big migration to Knots in recent weeks is a really important start!

I'm not saying it's a lot of effort. I'm saying it's pointless because the same shit will make it onchain regardless. Spend your time fighting the actual problem and not trying to patrol what content is available on an uncensorsble Blockchain

I’ll do both…but I decide what ends up on my node. Others have the same right. I think it’s worth making a choice for my node even if I can’t control what everyone else does with theirs.

Well damn. I considered storing information on the blockchain before, (email specifically) but I never fully considered the implications. I want to see what happens if people start uploading CP to the Bitcoin blockchain.

Would it damage the price of Bitcoin? Would chain analysis tools be restricted? Or would it get people to rethink the reasonableness of child porn laws?

Personally I trust the mantra "nothing ever happens." People would just pretend that the child porn doesn't exist, or come up with a retarded rationalization for why it doesn't count.

let‘s say it’s AI generated and shows EU functionaries. Would Europe be stupid enough to prosecute nodes and miners?

UK & AU will be just as tyrannical, fearful and predatory as the EU. I wouldn't even trust today's Singapore.

Uploading an image to the Bitcoin blockchain would be expensive enough. Buying enough CSAM to train an AI to generate it would be prohibitively expensive. I don't mean to virtue signal, but my child porn collection isn't anywhere close to the size of the FBI's collection, and I sincerely doubt they'd be fine with their CP being used to incriminate globalists.

have you considered to run a gofundme?

"Go Fund Me! I neen money so I can pay for child rape!" To be honest, I did not consider that possibility.

But I don't believe in asking for money for something unless I believe it's worth the price. I myself would never contribute to a Gofundme like that since I don't believe that the high cost of child porn is worth the benefit of screwing with globalists.

OK, another idea: run for a public office to put price caps on child porn and then buy with tax money

I refuse. Price caps are immoral.

Besides, there are already laws against pirating child porn and there are many who still break those laws. Even if the state made price caps, most sellers would probably just ignore the price caps. Alas, all that tax revenue falls through the state's fingers. Ah well, the biggest cost of child porn is to children's modesty anyway, so it's not really something we can extract or control anyway. Not to virtue signal or anything.

Also, if I'm going to run for public office just to make AI generated CP depicting a public official, why not just run for office and then make child porn the old fasioned way? Faith in public officials would be in shambles...

you‘re right! That’s the way: introduce adult child intercourse in schools’ teaching schedule and film the practical exercises

Man, that just sounds like some supid pedophile smut story. There's just way too much going on in it. I already told you from the start that I didn't see much point in seriously considering this. Elaborate plans and schemes can never accomplish as much at just talking with someone can, in which case all of these extra details are entirely gratuitous.

damn, then I have to cancel the order for the camera on amazon

Decent note discussion I stumbled across in the firehouse, even though I follow Lyn, I missed this yesterday

nostr:nevent1qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgyczyr4tpe6k6v4cp0x5vneas39cqspsxp66z04tcdve5a3vntr6hy057qcyqqqqqqg0pzf6a

Comparing scribbles on a bank note to spam on bitcoin is bizarre, comparing apples to oranges. Scribbles on a bank note do nothing to affect its functioning, while excessive spam absolutely affects/would affect bitcoin’s functionality.

Calling monetary maximalists “perfectionists” is another bizarre comparison. Wanting to keep bitcoin for monetary use over arbitrary data storage use has nothing to do with perfectionism.

Appreciate your concern for UTXO bloat, it’s real. But thinking that spam had its “peak” is misguided imo. Perhaps you haven’t seen the spammers chomping at the bit to have OP_RETURN limit removed, OP_CAT and a slew of other op codes added? Just like there was a spam lull in late ‘23, they lay low for a while and then return with force when they have some new way to fuck the timechain. Thinking scammers are done with bitcoin is exceedingly wishful.. (I hope I’m wrong and you can say I told you so!)

Bitcoin transactions will eventually outprice JPEGs *if* bitcoin still works.

At the root of this whole issue is miner centralization, so perhaps we can agree to work on supporting mining re-decentralization as ultimately critical to bitcoins long-term sustainability (and that will help take care of the spam issue as well)?

If JPEG's are stupid... then leave the currently existing filters and add even more filters to actively fight against the spam.

I would love to see just you and Bitcoin Mechanic talking this out on a podcast.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qyfhwumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetn9uq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwddsk6upwwd5hgef0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqsz394wpaq9jmu6ksyw74rfkgkvrz3tdtamaew3ya0nfg5ecnevgyca0ecyf

>And if Bitcoin transactions can't outprice >JPEGs in the long run, then it's just not that >valuable.

The demand for *arbitrary* data is gigantically larger than monetary data. Bitcoin the money will never be able to compete with that, and expecting it to do so is just stupid.

Especially if we take the time dependency into account. The monetary use case proves its value in the Long Run (as fiat systems gradually start to fail one by one in the future).

But by the time we reach the point we actually need it, it could well be already dead - because it was just dominated by garbage in the meantime and ppl stop running nodes for this type of junk.

Money is a $300 trillion market.

If bitcoin monetary transactions don’t outprice JPEGs in the future, it means Bitcoin never took any meaningful marketshare of money. It failed as money in that scenario.

First money need get up hand against gold. It’s already won against silver

My point is: it would take decades for Bitcoin to reach its (full) monetary potentisl, since fiat currencies fail gradually across the world.

At the same time it would take only a few years of constant spam for Bitcoin to be abandoned by disillusioned node runners.

It could fail wayyy before it even reaches your $300trillion market cap. The gambler's ruin fallacy

Well said. Don't these jpeg fads come and go anyway, whereas monetary transactions have persisted for Bitcoin's full history.

More stuff on block chain means more data means more storage required for nodes means only very rich people with access to large data pools like AWS are capable of running nodes.

We are watching bitcoin centralization unfold in front of us in real time.

That’s what the existing block limit is for.

The bigger issue than size is utxo bloat. Which admittedly OP_RETURN doesn't really do anything to fix in either direction, because after a modest size is reached, the segwit discount makes it cheaper to bloat the utxo set than to use OP_RETURN anyway.

The current uproar is definitely not an existential argument. I'm glad it's shining more light on Knots though, which I was already using anyway, and also on the governance issues around having a monopoly on node development. We need alternatives that are maintained in a robust manner, precisely to offset any centralization of power in the hands of whoever controls a given github account.

And sure, you can always just not upgrade your software...for awhile. Eventually security fixes come out, and then you get to decide whether to stay vulnerable or to do whatever that cabal has told you to do. Not an ideal situation.

Knowing Bitcoin, my guess is that putting things there will become too expensive before regular transactions do.

One of the smartest ideas behind Bitcoin is keeping the network small and efficient.

JPEGs and heavy data clog the timechain and raise storage needs — that’s not what Bitcoin was built for.

If we wanted that, we could just tokenize files and let Google or another giant host them.

The real value of Bitcoin is decentralization — validating transactions without trusting a centralized company. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose entirely.

Strawman

"You can scribble on a piece of paper so what's wrong with allowing arbitrary data to propagate and be stored on your decentralized monetary network?"

Node runners: making changes that will inevitably lead to contiguous blobs of CSAM stored in blocks will bring unnecessary scrutiny from governments and likely make it a moral and legal liability since I can reasonably be described as someone hosting and distributing CSAM. With this in mind, it might be prudent not to make this contentious change on the next revision of Core.

Lyn: I don’t think JPEGs will kill bitcoin, in a way it is a reflection of our society.

🫠

Like wut??

This is why we can’t have nice things

“I don’t think gun control will kill people’s 2nd amendment right” same energy

I'll try not to read between the lines...

If you fill blocks with crap, less people can afford it. That will hurt adoption. How is it that you can’t see that?

Lyn you’re being too reasonable; this is nostr!

I think the whole controversys aim is to plant the idea of: "if you run a node, you host child porn" giving legitamacy to regulatory control and overreac "for safety"