It sounds like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx also likes to run knots instead of #bitcoin core.

Bitcoiners what else is stopping you from running knots on your node instead of #bitcoin core.

Always remember that #Bitcoin is the last chance to save humans from modern day debt slavery.

nostr:note1fstcas6r4td8zqh4eyx887etckag6nf3dmwcddk4d9ggqzafqqvsayjra5

Is open sats planning to fund knots devs anytime soon? As you know some of the core devs may have been compromised and they seem to be showing subtle support for spam (sorry scam) on #bitcoin.

Would also be nice if you talk more about knots vs bitcoin core difference to your audience. I have seen a lot of people who are not in support of spam but they just don't know how to disincentivize this behaviour.

Core devs would talk about all new upgrades and almost every other technical thing being discussed in the #bitcoin community but they will never talk about how blocks are filled almost entirely by spam (sorry scam).

In case, if they speak about spam then they will probably try their best to rationalize it in the name of "valid transactions" and "free market".

Plebs need to run knots and as nostr:npub1wfvjajv0336mpxhdk6xvlafp20p8mch5083wyjd6xxnerlaxf5kqhsvx9a said before "Knots devs need more funding not the compromised #bitcoin core devs".

If you are a miner then send your hash to nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze.

nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

It's becoming more and more clear that reducing the blocksize (with removing witness discount) would be good for #bitcoin   .

Maybe we may not get consensus initially but as more and more plebs see more and more spam on #bitcoin , they will realize the importance of not including spam in the #bitcoin    and the cost of running their own node.

Just to be clear, even if spammers spam the 80% of blockspace of small blocks, it still makes sense to reduce the blocksize because it will still help with #bitcoin decentralization.

It's also becoming more and more clear that there is absolutely no reason to not run knots at this point. If you are miner then point your hash to nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze.

Plebs should be ditching the #bitcoin core by now. If they don't do that then either they don't understand #bitcoin    properly yet or they don't understand the real risk of spamming on #bitcoin.

cc nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

The more time I spend on #bitcoin xitter and nostr, the more it seems like a lot of bitcoiners (including some prominent #bitcoin    influencers) don't run their own nodes.

If these bitcoiners were running their own nodes then they wouldn't have easily been gaslighted by scammers in the name of valid transactions and free market.

Please learn how to run your own node and also learn how running knots disincentivizes spam on the #bitcoin network.

Small blocker gang is getting bigger and bigger.

Scammers would be like small blocks don't matter because we can still fill entire blocks with jpegs and scams but who would explain to those retards that scamming would be more expensive and cost of running node will be significantly low for a long time which helps with decentralization.

And there is one nuance that these scammers are missing. Blocksize will most likely be reduced with (not without) fixing the filters so, good luck getting witness discount for bloating UTXO set and #bitcoin blockchain with jpegs.

nostr:note1eq82j427n5tu5vvyvhgga63lwx39ym39mdh5220tcn68m46ztsaqxe45z7

Hello My Nostr Friends,

Does anyone know good alternative of Adobe Lightroom? My preference is open source software.

If you can also share a resources about how to use that software, it would be nice.

Just want to use as many open source apps as possible.

YOU DON'T NEED 4 MB BLOCK SIZE.

300 KB BLOCK SIZE COULD BE MORE THAN GOOD ENOUGH TO FIT ALL (MONETARY) TRANSACTIONS.

#BITCOIN ALWAYS THRIVES MORE WITH CONSERVATISM THAN PROGRESSIVISM.

FEW.

CC nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

Inostr:note1tflqvu6y9rue9tyau3c6vmp8l0qpvg3humeph8zgdxyp4ldxzydq2xphxc

That's certainly one of the good things about bitcoin but sometimes bad actor(s) can exploit the protocol by gaslighting people in the name of free market for a long time until people realize that it's a SCAM.

As most of the bitcoiners know that scammers have been spamming the bitcoin for more than year now.

I have seen some good arguments in support of filtering the spam to disincentive the behavior.

Time for the post on strawman and steelman arguments on spam.

Strawman: - What is your definition for scam? While I agree 99% of the trading is done because of speculation and will cause many to lose money. The scams are only projects lying to their customers to run out with their money, which there are many, but much less than speculate traders.

Steelman: - Just because you want to have sex doesn't mean you're justified in raping people who don't consent.

Strawman: - But aren’t they within the consensus rules and therefor it’s not rape? They found an exploit! Ok. Filter. Won’t they find another exploit? Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the monetary use cases? And people will choose to use it as SOV?

Steelman: - What if I find a way to steal anybody’s bitcoin within the consensus rules. Will you fix the bug? I will let him steal my Bitcoin as long as it is in consensus rules.

Strawman: - Ya I probably would want that fixed. But 1) how would someone steal bitcoin and still be within consensus? And 2) how are cat jpegs on blockchain the same as stealing someone’s bitcoin? That’s a clear issue needing addressed.

Steelman: - 1) people thought that the supply limit was 21m until someone found out how to violate it within the code's consensus engine. There's no know way to steal today, but the question is about how you would react if such a hypothetical vulnerability was discovered in the future - the exact mechanics of the exploit don't matter for the hypothetical. 2) cat jpegs on chain and steal someone's Bitcoin are the same issue because there isn't consensus for either one of them.

Strawman: - Is the 'exploit' that the code was written just fine, operates just as expected, and is being used in a different but anticipated way, but at an unanticipated rate? Or is there more?

Steelman: - Bitcoin script was not intended for unlimited arbitrary data storage, therefore it is not operating as expected.

Strawman: - Seems like Casey expected OP_FALSE, _IF, _PUSH, _ENDIF to operate that way. Do you mean he just guessed? Storage is still bound by block size(not unlimited) and the 'scammers ran out of fiat for their attack', ie fees operated exactly as we all expected them to do.

Steelman: - You're describing every single exploit/hack/crack in computer software history. The people who designed OpenSSL intended it to be a library for HTTPS security. The people who designed the Heartbleed hack expected to break OpenSSL so, you think Heartbleed wasn't an exploit and OpenSSL was just fine? This is clown-world logic.

Steelman: - In information security terminology, a "bug" is a problem found in the software. Some bugs are also "vulnerabilities", meaning that you can leverage them to cause unintended or unexpected behavior by the software. Leveraging them is the "exploit" of the vulnerability.

Strawman: - I can convince myself it's an exploit (semantically) but I still struggle to see the bug. Everything is operating as expected, but some users are using those operations (in an obvious way) to do something others for whatever reason didn't expect.

Steelman: - The bug is the datacarriersize is not properly counting data carried inside op_false op_if

Strawman: - ty! (although begs the q what is meant by 'properly') Was there a reason it was ignored? Was this deliberate decision? A non-concern? My (crude) understanding was some initially used this for commenting, as it doesn't execute anything.

Steelman: - When datacarriersize was first introduced in 0.9 it was done so simultaneously with op_return. Prior to 0.9 people had started to use ridiculously inefficient methods to embed small amounts of arbitrary data in transactions, so a consensus emerged to create a strictly limited, but TOLERATED way to add arbitrary data to transactions - that's what op_return was. To limit the amount of arbitrary data per transaction, datacarriersize was added. For the next 10 years, all was happy. Then in early 2023 someone discovered a way to add arbitrary data to a transaction outside of op_return, and bypass the datacarriercheck matching heuristic. This bug was critical for inscriptions to work because it meant that they could bypass the existing spam filters to add any amount of arbitrary data up to the block weight limit. In mid-2023, the bitcoin core managers closed the issue about the bug, claiming that discussing the github topic was "too controversial" In August 2023, a Bitcoin core maintainer changed the documentation/comments in the source code which defined arbitrary data. Since then the core team has been unwilling to acknowledge that this is a bug.

Strawman: - Also remember that a property of OP_RETURN is that it creates a provably unspendable utxo, which can be safely pruned if you don't want to store the arbitrary data on your node.

Steelman: - This isn't an argument against spam, though. Pruning just adds to the work of a full node, it doesn't eliminate it. And Inscriptions are all equally prunable.

Steelman: - OP_RETURN is a top symbol of altcoining mindset, such mindset classic 'solution' is a BAND-AID to pretend the problem does not exist and life goes on. As hash-anchoring to TXs is possible, the question needs to be: how to make it VERY cumbersome. NOT apply a band-aid on top.

As you can see clearly from some of these arguments that legitimate bug is being exploited by some bad actors in the #bitcoin community.

I would strongly suggest running @BitcoinKnots

to disincentivize this behaviour and if you are miner then send your hash to @ocean_mining

.

If this bug doesn't get fixed then I wouldn't be surprised if we have to reconsider the blocksize limit since spam (sorry scam) has been bloating bitcoin blockchain and UTXO set like never before.

It will drive up the cost to run your own node hence we may need to think about reducing the blocksize limit as you can see most of the mempool is filled with garbage (to scam the people)

Maybe 300kb-400kb limit would be optimal blocksize limit. It will at least keep the cost of running your own node low for a very long time.

If you want to see bitcoin getting succeed, you don't want to see NGU in only #bitcoin price but NGU in node runners as well and current spamming condition will severely affect the NGU in node runners (in the long run for sure).

cc nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub16s0grk7sp9255t0s22suc5rhamhsf325hn8dcxzjdz2gw0rcms7stj8ky6 nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

Some people are making money off spam and that's one of the reasons why these same people have been rationalizing spam for no good reason (s).

How do you know that it's not affecting operation of the network? Have you tried syncing IBD on low end computers (like Raspberry Pi4 or Pi5)?

If the blockchain grows faster than the rate of improvement in the memory, RAM and processor then how soon we need more expensive hardware to sync IBD (or to run a node)? Maybe think about 2030 or 2035 with this perspective and you will realize that operation of bitcoin is being affected.

Why would you not support reducing blocksize? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts on this.

I checked mempool several times today and almost all of the time, I found mempool filled with garbage data (to scam the people).

If these blocks have been filled with garbage most of the time then why do we need 4MB blocks?

Why are Bitcoiners talking about further upgrades? Instead it would be WISE to talk about reducing the blocksize limit since the free market has been trying to tell us that we don't need 4MB blocks. It's being misused by attackers and spammers.

Reducing the blocksize will probably do following things: -

1) Keep the cost of running nodes very low (hence it helps with decentralization)

2) It promotes scalability in layers (i.e. L2, L3 etc) instead of on chain scaling.

What are the real risks by reducing block size? Except some scammers can't scam the people easily (but I believe that's a good thing)

I think #bitcoin thrives more with conservatism than progressivism.

cc nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

The way some bitcoiners simp for politicians who are or just became pro-bitcoin is just unbelievable sometimes.

Why do you keep forgetting that #bitcoin    doesn't need politicians to succeed but politicians need #bitcoin to get elected?

STAY HUMBLE & STACK SATS

Would you call this negligible?

Fiat normies have no idea that there is a thing called #bitcoin    who doesn't require intermediary so, you don't get fucked like this.

PersonalFinanceCanada subreddit group is full of fiat normies.

Study #bitcoin    😎😎😎

Since shitcoin ETF has been approved, is there any possibility that some of these spammers might move to mETH hence we might see noticeable reduction in spam?

Am I too retard to think like this?

#bitcoin

It's shocking that most of the #bitcoin    community is very quiet about this issue.

Instead almost all of the #bitcoin community (including some of the famous #bitcoin    influencers) are still busy in normalizing spam in the name of either "valid transactions" or "it helps miners to get additional fees".

Will you guys wait to switch to knots until plebs can't afford to sync IBD on their node?

Do you only care about #bitcoin price NGU?

In case if you forgot but you may want to care about NGU in noderunners as well.

cc nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

Let's look into how spammers use Pay-to-Script-Hash(P2SH) method to spam the #bitcoin network.

In this P2SH method, data chunks are added sequentially to the unlocking script, then "dropped" from the script's memory after they've been verified. It's like writing a long message on a series of puzzle pieces, then scattering the pieces for someone else to find and reassemble.

For example, David wants to store a large document on the blockchain. He breaks the document into small chunks and creates a P2SH transaction where each chunk is "dropped" into the unlocking script in order. When the transaction is spent, the chunks are reassembled to recreate the original document.

There is a new type of scam token introduced by Xitter account MikeInSpace which is called SRC-20 tokens that MIGHT BE USING P2SH transactions to spam the #bitcoin network.

Since they might have started with new tokens, we haven't seen dramatic rise (YET) in P2SH UTXO set but it's something we would like to keep an eye on in the future.

These transactions can be quite large, especially for bigger files. If many users start storing large amounts of data this way, it could significantly increase the size of the blockchain & UTXO set, making it harder for average users to run full nodes.

As you can see in this picture, they are blatantly saying that you can't even prune these transactions by scamming people in the name of immutability and permanence.

In conclusion, while the Bitcoin blockchain offers a temptingly permanent and censorship-resistant platform for monetary transactions only, methods like inscriptions, SRC-20 & BRC-20 tokens create unspendable UTXOs that bloat the UTXO set, while OP_RETURN doesn’t bloat the UTXO set but contribute to overall blockchain bloat. This bloat can make it more expensive to run a Bitcoin node, which could lead to centralization as fewer users can afford to store the full blockchain. It also puts extra strain on the network, potentially slowing down transaction processing and increasing fees for everyone.

If you really want to disincentivize this behavior and reduce inscriptions on #bitcoin blockchain , then I would strongly recommend running Knots instead of original #bitcoin core.

If you are miner then point your hash to nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze since they always mine almost spam free block and they are the only mining pool who cares about health of the #bitcoin network.

cc nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk