Avatar
Reed
32092ec1a258c9f2c11a9a5bb53b127ca20941f1803dd7f6715050ff8e9fd13a
Bitcoiner, Nuclear Engineer, Truth Maximalist, God not Religion, Earth not ESG Organizer of @npub1ynn5qnnc95qaqjejrtyazfdgutlxvme3djywe6s9wg76k68s37sqsl2qfd

Can get pricey though. It's almost like fees are an incentive to not use the timechain as a nostr relay. Right?

Ah, too many zeros on my trillion guess... The others were pretty close though πŸ€™

Replying to Avatar FLASH

βš‘οΈπŸ’¬ MY THOUGHTS - Since the blackout that paralyzed all of Spain yesterday starting at 12:30 PM, no official explanation has yet been given by the Spanish electricity grid operator. This silence raises questions, especially in the face of such a serious event. Has it become too sensitive to admit that incidents like this might be linked to an all-green energy model β€” one imposed without real debate and presented as a miracle solution?

Flying over Spain, one can see vast fields of solar panels covering entire regions. Behind this attractive image of modern ecology lies a major vulnerability. This energy production is entirely dependent on weather conditions, making the power grid much more unstable and unable to reliably balance supply and demand on its own.

My theory is simple: publicly acknowledging that this energy model creates a risk of massive blackouts would be a political failure. It would call into question the entire narrative surrounding the European Green Deal and the push for rapid energy transitions. To avoid opening that debate, some might prefer to delay or withhold clear explanations from the public.

But if this silence continues, it risks further eroding the already fragile trust between citizens and those making major energy decisions on their behalf.

What do you think? Are we witnessing the first visible consequences of a rushed, ideology-driven energy transition? I’m genuinely curious to hear your thoughts β€” I’ve met a lot of sharp minds on Nostr.

Yes, I believe we are witnessing the first visible consequences of a rushed, ideology-driven energy transition.

I will learn from this and take action to ensure that I am prepared for extended duration power outages.

Replying to Avatar OP_RETURN Bot

πŸ”” πŸ”” NEW OP_RETURN πŸ”” πŸ””

Unfortunately, as near as I can tell there is no sensible way to prevent people from storing arbitrary data in witnesses without incentivizing even worse behavior and/or breaking legitimate use cases. If we ban "useless data" then it would be easy for would-be data storers to instead embed their data inside "useful" data such as dummy signatures or public keys. Doing so would incur a ~2x cost to them, but if 2x is enough to disincentivize storage, then there's no need to have this discussion because they will be forced to stop due to fee market competition anyway. (And if not, it means there is little demand for Bitcoin blockspace, so what's the problem with paying miners to fill it with data that validators don't even need to perform real computation on?). But if we were to ban "useful" data, for example, saying that a witness can't have more than 20 signatures in it, then we are into the same problem we had pre-Taproot: that it is effectively impossible construct signing policies in a general and composeable way, because any software that does so will need to account for multiple independent limits. We deliberately replaced such limits with "you need to pay 50 weight for each signature" to makes this sort of analysis tractable. There's a reasonable argument that this sort of data is toxic to the network, since even though "the market is willing to bear" the price of scarce blockspace, if people were storing NFTs and other crap on the chain, then the Bitcoin fee market would become entangled with random pump & dump markets, undermining legitimate use cases and potentially preventing new technology like LN from gaining a strong foothold. But from a technical point of view, I don't see any principled way to stop this. - apoelstra -michaelscott -cbspears

https://mempool.space/tx/8b5dee2b310381822525e43d22501637cd8142582dcccf45ca966b6b526e9f89

Fair enough. Not sure his comments warranted being labeled "abuse" and him being banned entirely though.

New here in what sense? I'm not a Bitcoin core dev, and no I am not deeply in tune with the social dynamics of Bitcoin pull requests, but I've been around long enough to remember r/bitcoin & r/btc censorship and I don't think that was necessarily a net positive for Bitcoin as a whole.

What was basis for banning Mechanic exactly?

This affects me very little, doesn't appear to be a major roadblock to Bitcoin scaling and doesn't seem to be a legit code maintenance issue. It kinda seems like change for the sake of change.

Therefore I am on team no change unless I'm wrong about it being a bigger problem than I outlined above.