I wouldn't want blocks to get any bigger. Like it or not, your knots node contains jpegs already. 4mb is more than large enough for blocks on L1. I don't think they ever need to get any bigger. Certainly not any time soon.
I'm enjoying the food. My wallet is not đ
This ain't my first rodeo. Been here 2 times before. Successfully quit smoking for over 5 years before. I didn't have any form of nicotine in that time either. I still don't smoke but nicotine pouches are a great performance enhancer...
What's the worst thing that can happen if this passes? There's too much "spam" getting into the chain? Still a 4mb block limit. If people think it's an issue, they can downgrade (likely won't upgrade anyways) or run a soft fork like knots? I'm actually curious. I don't think anything can happen that will irreparably break Bitcoin. But I want to know your thoughts.
Funny of you to assume I wasn't around in 2016... Changing the block size is a much different issue that has actual technical implications for decentralization. You're free to disagree but this change does not in my opinion.
Nicotine appetite suppressant is real. I've been eating like crazy.
How does 100 less lines of code not make sense?
Sorry, I shouldnt have said your head was up your ass. I'm glad you care as much as you do. I care too.
No one is forcing node runners to remove limits though... Node updates are not forced.
This doesn't remove the ability to set limits from your mempool. This removes the default setting for CORE. CORE is just a REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION. If this makes it into 30 you know what will still work? 29...
I'm signaling to simplify cores code base to make is more simple, more maintainable and less prone to drama in the future. On top of that, it becomes easier to soft fork to make changes and add whatever filtering you want to your own mempool. My position is not of more utility. Because this doesn't give Bitcoin any more utility than it already has. Your head is so far up your own ass to understand that argument, so you'd rather hurl insults and misrepresent my position.
No... I'm not... You just like many others are being so dogmatic you fail to even see my point
Call me a shitcoiner all you want. Doesn't make it true...
Your aka proves you don't know what you're talking about... Data in OP return is the same as data in any other part of a tx... Data is data... You're so stuck on it mattering more in OP return than any other part.
GM. âď¸ A little mower maintenance... I'd say she's just a bit rich huh?
People switching to knots only because they're afraid, like they don't want to be on the wrong side of history. Check your appeals to authority.
If they are paying a high enough fee and it is concensous it won't be filtered out. You're kinda defeating the purpose of censorship resistance.
You can do that all you want. It won't stop your knots node from storing things you think are spam after those txs are confirmed. I don't give a shit what you keep in your mempool. You're so dogmatic that I follow you when my position is people should do whatever they want to do. Do you understand the difference?
I dont need to understand. That's what you're not getting. I don't get to decide. You don't either. Sorry you don't like that.
And nodes create the network and enforce the rules.
"So, who secures Bitcoin?!
If securing Bitcoin requires consensus on what Bitcoin is, and Bitcoin is a database of values assigned to keys, and Bitcoin has a protocol for reassignment of keys, then securing Bitcoin can only be done by ⌠your node!
Nodes! Nodes! Nodes!
In the end, YOU secure Bitcoin, but the only time that matters is when you agree with someone else on what Bitcoin is, and the only way that you can express yourself to others is via your node.
You can try to abstract this and say that hodlers of last resort secure it, or that you can express yourself by buying or selling, but the only way you can actually communicate yourself is via enforcement of the protocol.
What about Miners?
Miners are suppliers of blocks, nothing more. Nodes demand consensus-compatible blocks as a vessel for key reassignment. Minersâ ability to influence the protocol is limited to the wiggle room within the protocolâs magic numbers.
For example, they can limit blocksize if they can cooperate and coordinate over shared incentives, and they can exclude transactions in the same way. But when a miner exercises any power that is detrimental to consensus they approach high risks at a quick pace.
This same dynamic applies to re-orgs, 51% attacks, etc. These attacks are not only risks to miners in that there is a cost in sacrificing blocks or failing probabilities, they run the higher-level risk of being entirely ignored and excluded from extra-protocol consensus, the market itself.
Nodes actually define what a âminerâ is."
Full text here:
https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/who-secures-bitcoin-95b19bbcda3c
I fail to see how this is related to what I said... And yes, I know nodes set the rules... UASF during the block wars showed exactly who runs things.
They don't have to go directly to a miner. They can run their own node that will hold the tx in their mempool. If you're trying to go to a miner to get your tx included in a block for any other reason than paying the most then you'll always have to go to a miner. If someone wants to inscribe a 4mb jpeg they can do it right now without going directly to a miner by paying 3 sats per vbyte. Paying a high fee IS going to the miner. The willingness to pay the fee is the economic signal to the miner. There is no need to reach out directly.
Yes they can. They can make their own fork, remove the limit and be in concensous right now.
Except it doesn't allow more spam than is currently already possible on Bitcoin. There is nothing I can't put on Bitcoin right now that will be possible after the change.
Sure. Not sure how that mattes since you can remove the filter entirely and still be in concensous anyways. If people want to pay to put it on chain, they will. Doesn't matter what core does here. This just makes Core more maintainable and gets people to shut up about the whole thing once and for all.
It's a legal agreement... I only have to trust them as much as I trust the judicial system and their incentive to abide by what they agreed to. Statefarm wanted to try to sell us on the fact theat they pay out faster than others and it can take a long time with other people. We told him that's not a concern of ours, It's okay if it take months to get to us. What I didn't say is that's because we have enough Bitcoin to more than pay for emergencies, funeral etc... The life insurance is just to make the one left behinds life a whole lot easier once the payout comes.
When you have a wife and children, having life insurance is a pretty good idea. Luckily I don't need that much because of Bitcoin.
Bruh that is a WILD assumption. Complete BS outa China...
Add BIP: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis
Does this need a BIP? No. No it doesn't. Neither does BIP-177's proposal
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1841/files
I guarantee this has more support though. Boost it to ruffle them feathers.
The real motivation is to show how ridiculous BIP-176/177 actually are.
Sorry nostr:npub10vlhsqm4qar0g42p8g3plqyktmktd8hnprew45w638xzezgja95qapsp42
nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424
Alright y'all... User Syncing is live on wss://wheat.happytavern.co. đž
Seems to be working well.
(Whitelisted Users will have most of their events synced into the relay over time.)
There's also some new frontend functionality of you want to check it out
If it's still running tomorrow I'll make a release. #grain #nostr #relay
nostr:nprofile1qqsdcnxssmxheed3sv4d7n7azggj3xyq6tr799dukrngfsq6emnhcpspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszxmhwden5te0w35x2en0wfjhxapwdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9u0men07 nostr:nprofile1qqsw3mfhnrr0l6ll5zzsrtpeufckv2lazc8k3ru5c3wkjtv8vlwngkspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3vamnwvaz7tmwdaehgun9d35hgetn9ehhyee0h65qrn nostr:nprofile1qqs8eseg5zxak2hal8umuaa7laxgxjyll9uhyxp86c522shn9gj8crspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qgjwaehxw309ahx7um5wgerztnrdakj7qgkwaehxw309a3x2an09ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hsvlnggv nostr:nprofile1qqs06gywary09qmcp2249ztwfq3ue8wxhl2yyp3c39thzp55plvj0sgprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qguwaehxw309a6xsetrd96xzer9dshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qgkwaehxw309akkcettw5h8yetpd3ujumr0dshs2yykzg
I don't see the WOT solution in the discussion but having some sort of proof of compromise using NIP5 before being able to send a valid retired note sounds like an interesting idea