Ok so apparently rolling back the chain in case of a CSAM OP_RETURN is also proposed as an activation mechanism for this “anti-spam” soft fork drafted by nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk.
Also, even if no such OP_RETURN is mined, they want to activate this as a UASF within ~three(!) months.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/commits/3c718237072c107ced8c3531a487354fbdae55df
And how is this not a tradeoff between censorship resistance and decentralization?
Censorship resistance?
This is a financial network, how the fuck is not allowing childporn censorship?
Bitcoin was never meant to host childporn or spam it's money.
Put that garbage on a different blockchain
Bitcoin censors double spends, and all sorts of garbage which includes spam, jpegs, invalid transactions, etc. And yes that includes CSAM. If it didn't (which it should), it would be a bug.
The dial (of censorship) allows for inscriptions, 80+ bytes of op_return, etc. It we dial the filters all the way up to the point to of, let's say, how ad blockers work (centralized), that would removed decentralization. If we turn it the other way (allow op_return data), and never update filters, we loose the ability to censor, and the network gains decentralization (as it requires less updates to keep it working). For example, depending checkpointing would be an analog of loosing decentralization because it implies that it must me updated to keep bitcoin running (the checkpoint).
What is wrong with my thinking?
This is exactly why this drama was orchestrated in the first place. It's like Denmark introducing chat control in the name of children protection.
A monetary network with reduced attack vectors.
"ArmanTheParman 3 hours ago •
How about... There should be no subjective assessment of arbitrary data's content/meaning, all arbitrary data (extra data not contributing to the movement of sats on layer 1) can just be rejected indiscriminately based on some limit, eg zero.
I acknowledge not all arbitrary data can be, or needs to be, eliminated, but the principle is objective, and rules based off that can be made. If some arbitrary data cannot be interpreted as being arbitrary, then so be it, it gets on chain.
But having a FIELD dedicated to arbitrary data can easily be objectively blocked."
signed
Some people love Bitcoin so much they are willing to attack it to save it 🥰
Some people are so corrupt and compromised that they don't care about Bitcoin or The Hope for Humanity.
Core V30 is the attack on Bitcoin.
And fuk Adam Back Sam Todd and Stephanie Livera
Scammers and shitcoiners
Not sure who you mean by Sam but if its Samson Mow, he is very very good actor, mate.
Definitely fuck Peter Todd, absolute bad actor and given Livera's knowledge and his stance fuck him.
Adam Back is very unfortunate case. But at least I see a good acting from Andrew Poelstra who works in Blockstream.
Here is the mailing list discussion of the soft fork that fixes the Core V30 insanity.
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/aN_u-xB2ogn2D834@erisian.com.au/T/
and here is a discussion on Github
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/commits/3c718237072c107ced8c3531a487354fbdae55df
Yes
Peter todd
This is Peter Todd, the bad actor who wants add inflation to Bitcoin and remove the 21 Million Bitcoin limit.
While I don't particularly like Peter Todd (that's probably where we agree), he is right about the tail emission.
I highly encourage everyone to read his full article /analysis of a tail emissions and the sources he linked.
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
You say what you say because you are a Monero fanboy and you have tail emissions in Monero which I consider a shitcoin.
The supply of Monero will double in 117 years, tripple in 234 years and so on because of that inflation. That is absolute shit because real money last for thousands of years.
Gold has been money for 5000+ years and Bitcoin is much much better than Gold.
Luke's obsession with CSAM is creepy.
All the people defending turning the blockchain into a child porn hosting service are creepy.
Like how the fuck is Luke creepy for responding to you pedophiles with "no" ?
You people are trying to put childporn on chain and Luke is creepy for saying no? What the fu k
If you can get the network to do this emergency soft fork…why not one that builds in kyc requirements.
The knots people are fucking retarded.
Meanwhile in reality it's the core Devs taking money from Blackrock to mandate KYC after they make it unaffordable to run a node
How is it unaffordable to run a node? Op return doesn’t make the blocks bigger.
My node is quite affordable to run. Introducing arbitrary obstacles to prevent relaying transactions that will eventually be confirmed into a block doesn’t actually benefit the network in any way.
Wow, what a spammer we have here.
Spam takes the valuable space meant for monetary transactions.
Instead of monetary transactions we have now 30 GB of fucking inscriptions spam and you support that like a fucking shitcoiner.
And thats only from these Ordinals ... who knows how much more junk we have.
I support an open protocol that resists censorship. I don’t support hysterical fear mongering authoritarians like you.
In order to strip away all the vectors for spam you would have to remove most of bitcoins functionality. No more multisig, no lightning network, no way to scale.
You have no idea what you are doing.
Your bullshit is misinformation. Its nice when spammers like you expose themselves.
Try using your own brain. Appeals to authority are weak sauce. The blocks are practically empty running on average under 1.5 mb. Maybe try using bitcoin if you want the chain to be only used for financial transactions. I use the base layer at least 3 -4 times a week for purely financial transactions and multiple times daily on layer 2s. The best way to fight spam is using blockspace. I’m doing my part.
What a bullshit again : ))
Are you in the bed with Aaron?
E = mc2, yes I have accepted Einsteins thinking. Great argument about appeals.
The second bullshit is about spam fees. They are negligible for miners.
The best way to use Bitcoin Freedom Money as Money.
Not a spam, csam dumpster.
There is already illegal material on chain. The laws of the world are often at odds with each other and in some cases very restrictive. Do you propose we purge the whole chain of this evil material? Where does it end?
All your arguments come down to is that you don’t understand that spammers will always find a way and that you want an ossified chain that can’t scale to be freedom money for anyone except the handful of users it currently services.
Bitcoin is anarchy. Deal with it.
And we make it as hard as possible for the spammers to spam on Bitcoin.
That way Bitcoin Freedom Money will be as much as possible available for monetary use.
What full node operator would allow that? None.
We just dont want to store your retarded files for the rest of eternity, and this is where we draw the line. GFY
If you are running a node you are already storing questionable data. This bip won’t stop data you don’t like but it will destroys bitcoins ability to prevent itself from becoming the kyc coin.
Fucking insane take. I just want the devs to focus on stopping the current spam. Not making future spam easier.
Using taproot inputs for inscriptions is fundamentally different than allowing large chunks of data in OP_RETURN. Inscriptions are backdooring the intended use of taproot. Opening op_return makes the data the intended use. Its not hard to understand.
Op_return was put in place a decade ago to prevent utxo pollution. You can’t stop utxo pollution, and it’s far worse for Bitcoin than OP_return spam.
You have the right to run your own node you don’t have the right to change the rules and roll back the chain to remove valid transactions.
Where in the link does it talk about rolling the chain back?
Sure, but nodes have the ability to make certain transactions invalid if the operators dont want to store bullshit on their computers for eternity.
Line 180 “If, however, some content appears in the chain that causes significant risks, we can fall back to the reactive method, which is a retroactive chain reorganization to invalidate the offending block (and any subsequent blocks) while immediately activating the new rules.”
This is the most retarded suggestion I have ever read. If you support this you are also retarded.
Ok i was uninformed. My b. I dont like the reactive approach but I dont see anything wrong with the proactive one.
OP_RETRUN change from 80 Bytes to 100 000 Bytes welcomes more spam and csam because it does not fix anything else.
It’s cheaper to use the witness discount.
It will always be possible to string together multiple transactions and pollute the utxo set.
Your constant accusations and harassment against people who are far more intelligent and with far more understanding of Bitcoin has backfired . You all sound retarded.
Weak propaganda from a spammer.
Just calling balls and strikes here pal. I find spam to be just as retarded as most of your comments, but I think handing over our future to lunatics like Luke jr is insane.
This proposal is ridiculous. A chain reorg? Where does it end. Do we go back to the genesis block and strip away satoshi’s message? Do we strip out Luke’s gay ass Bible shit?
Running a node is cheap as chips and nothing short of making the block size bigger is going to change that. Try holding some bitcoin if life is getting too expensive.
Bitcoin is Freedom Money.
Not a spam, csam, jpegs or any other arbitrary data dumpster.
By blowing up OP_RETRUN you invite more of it and you support that. That makes you a spammer.
Of course your bs propaganda speaks volumes too.
Here is Nick Szabo answer for you.
If it’s cheaper to other methods for some types of spam op return size is irrelevant.
If some types of spam is going to pollute the utxo set if it can’t use op return because of its size it is preferable to increase the op_return size than to encourage utxo bloat.
That is why there is this soft fork bip that fixes a lot of weaknesses that are exploited from spammers 🤙
New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid.
OP_PUSHDATA* with payloads larger than 256 bytes are invalid, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 scriptSigs.
Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141 nor Taproot/BIP 341) is invalid.
Witness stacks with a Taproot annex are invalid.
Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes (a merkle tree with 128 script leaves) are invalid.
Tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS* opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid.
Tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction (regardless of result) are invalid.
It doesn’t fix all spam vectors so all this means is more transactions and more utxo pollution. To fix all spam vectors you will have to destroy any hope of bitcoin scaling and multisig….and even then spam will find a way.
The reactive activation chaotic chain reorg portion is the most retarded thing I have read in a bip. Anyone supporting this will be outed as a glowie or a useful idiot. Which one are you?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm not seeing anything about content moderation in BIP 444, just a limit to script size. Am I missing something?
That is exactly the point. Bitcoin is Money. Bitcoin is not a dumpster for any arbitrary data like spam, csam, jpegs or anything like that.
I’m seeing that BIP 444 was authored by someone calling themselves Dathon Ohm and that Luke Dashjr has denied authoring it. What is your evidence that Luke is the author?
It says at the bottom of the BIP that the original draft came from Luke. (And FWIW, even before I saw that, while reading, it was pretty obvious to me that that was the case.)
Has Luke denied this? (Where?)
It wouldn't be out of character for Luke to propose those but if so, why wouldn't he just use his own name. I don't see any attribution to Luke in BIP 444 but maybe I'm just missing it. Here's a link to the article that says he denies being the author
https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/bitcoin-bip-444-soft-fork-proposal-sparks-legal-and-moral-debate
