Avatar
ManyKeys
5143c373df1b548a77d79ec74f27255d129b695b522dfb5bf43498ba4b501df9
Keys, not credos

That's a precedent that will only multiply if propagation path remains scarce; meanwhile, junk hype cannot sustain itself by constantly outbidding standard use case. I'm as anti-junk as you but I try to look at things objectively.

Filters provide greedy miners that put profits above Bitcoin's network health an edge — that's the real attack vector worth everyone's attention.

Because the folks who want to issue junk on the chain opt to go to specific miners directly to include their junk. These specific miners then outperform smaller miners due to the fees they receive in this manner — rinse and repeat this be behavioural pattern and soon we have centralization of mining.

The reason why they go about this way is because if they just send their non-standard txs to the mempool of their nodes the propagation path for remain scarce because of the data carrier limit. This limitation feeds this behaviour.

This is like claiming there's no risk/reward. For negligent upside and exceeding risks, they might choose not to. If most chooses not to, the propagation path remains limited, as currently. These are just possible scenarios, you might be correct to bet on human greed.

I understand there's a need to relax the data carrier limits for new use cases but opening it up to the max block size seems like an overshoot. I want to retain the optionality, though I understand that, after block confirmation, my node will end up storing the data that guys like yourself relayed to the miners. It's a catch 22.

Libre relay has been around for ages, you've been running that all this time? I would assume you were on Core

Replying to Avatar jb55

I didn't knots people cared about credentialism, but I guess thats fair. so here are mine.

there are ~1234 contributors to bitcoin. in terms of raw contributions mine would be 188/1234:

https://cdn.jb55.com/s/4104d140cd815d77.txt#:~:text=William%20Casarin

If adam has contributed he must be doing it under a nym since I don't see any commits from him.

my commits: https://cdn.jb55.com/s/8b84ea34bec4caac.txt

I worked on usdt tracing and performance optimizations. I am by no means a frequent contributor, I mainly work on lightning tech.

things I've worked on:

core-lightning: https://cdn.jb55.com/s/283cc3006988b7b4.txt

lnsocket - a C/rust library for talking to lightning network nodes https://github.com/jb55/lnsocket-rs

btcs - a bitcoin toy bitcoin script interpreter https://github.com/jb55/btcs

bitcointap - A tool for tapping into bitcoin-core tracepoints to extract data in realtime:

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bitcointap-an-strace-like-tool-for-bitcoin-ebpf-usdt-tracepoints/1694

opentimestamps: i put together the haskell implementation of ots, and built a suite of tools that work with them: https://github.com/jb55/ots-tools

I maintain the "bitcoin" nodejs rpc lib: https://npmrepo.com/bitcoin

I've hacked on HWI and helped with a lot of the bitcoin-nix infrastructure.

I've also been around since 2010 and have a decent understanding how various parts of the codebase work, especially on the script side.

what about you?

Mr. Back's work is in the citations of the whitepaper and Luke got way more credentials, so do the other nackers who are in the top rows. I, unfortunately, only started on this journey in 2017, but I am constantly learning. I try to remain unbiased and wrote about the issue my thoughts. More nuanced approach would be appreciated if you are with the ackers.

Regardless of what you choose, if limits are lifted and people run Core 30, let's say 5% of nodes run the latest version (you can fill up one block with one jpeg) they will relay that tx, and if it gets confirmed by a miner, your node will have it. That's what is meant by "we'll rape your node".

Just don't upgrade to the latest version, run 29.0.0 and set your own limits. Those who will run 30 are responsible for their choices and we can't do much about it except choosing not to run it. That's it.

They are, then, compromised and subverted.

That's a terrible thought in itself. However, still totally plausible with the current unfolding of events. Especially, with today's leadership in many countries. Abolish statism and all that comes with it.

Replying to Avatar FLASH

⚡️🚨 FYI - Facebook once bought a VPN app for $120M and turned it into a surveillance tool that spied on 33M+ users' entire phones for years.

This app helped Zuck buy WhatsApp for a whopping $19B and break Snapchat's encryption.

The name of this Israeli app was Onavo.

It promised to “secure your data” and reduce mobile data usage.

When Facebook bought it in 2013, Zuck said the app would help them connect more people to the internet.

Facebook even promised to keep Onavo running as a standalone brand.

But Onavo operated as a VPN that routed all your phone's internet traffic through Facebook's servers before sending it anywhere else.

Facebook could see:

• Every app you opened

• How long you used it

• Which websites you visited

• And at what time you used each app

What did this mean for Facebook?

It meant that Zuck could see exactly which one of Facebook's competitor was growing popular among people.

Look how Facebook was tracking these apps (revealed in the court later)

By 2016, this data revealed Snapchat was exploding in popularity.

But there was one problem: Snapchat's traffic was encrypted, so Facebook couldn't see how people were using it.

In an email, Zuck says:

It seems important to figure out a way to get reliable analytics about them

Facebook's started "Project Ghostbusters" - named after Snapchat's ghost logo.

They would use "man-in-the-middle" attacks to break Snapchat's encryption.

Within a month, Facebook's engineers built "kits" that could intercept Snapchat's data before it got encrypted.

Facebook created custom client & server side code based on Onavo’s VPN proxy app.

This code included a client-side “kit” that installed a root certificate on Snapchat users’ mobile devices.

Then Facebook’s servers created fake digital certificates to impersonate Snapchat analytics servers to redirect & decrypt secure traffic from those apps to Facebook.

Seeing Snapchat's success, Zuckerberg offered to buy it for $3 billion.

But when Snap's CEO refused the offer, Facebook launched Snap's most famous feature on Instagram - Stories.

But this wasn't just about Snapchat.

Facebook used Onavo to systematically monitor Houseparty, YouTube, Amazon, and dozens of other apps.

Any rising competitor was identified, analyzed, and neutralized.

Apple forced Onavo off the App Store for violating privacy rules.

So Facebook rebranded it as "Facebook Research" and started paying teens $20/month to install it on their phones.

When Apple found out, they revoked Facebook's certificates, breaking ALL of Facebook's iOS apps.

Onavo shows how Big Tech weaponizes our trust.

33 million people installed privacy protection that was actually the most sophisticated corporate surveillance tool ever built.

I'm posting all the screenshots as comments.

A typical parasitic behavior that is only befitting...

One flight, one child, but one obese person is like 3 children. Maybe start with better food?

This will just increase grey/black market flows, p2p txs are to be between like-minded plebs that will not differentiate coins based on where they have been, no?

nostr:nevent1qqsv0wflzuf8jnhzcfz80hf0h2q45d37wuz0g6zez6l2ftqmtnzcvjgppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsxuzslfpfteray9wqy04s2sxfsmzysfj3l9txlkkuyzw4ce86yfegrqsqqqqqp7dwkq0

We're witnessing the biggest systematic genocide in modern history and people act like it doesn't concern them cause "it's not my country" or some other stupid shit like that.

Human suffering is human suffering — it matters not where it is happening and who is the transgressor.

Predictable dilution is still dilution, it just comes with a calendar invite. Calling it “not inflation” because it’s steady is like claiming rain doesn’t get you wet if it’s in the forecast.

Monero’s fixed emission shields against fee uncertainty, but every new coin still chips away at existing holders’ share. That’s a tradeoff, not a free lunch, and dressing it up as “sustainable” doesn’t change the arithmetic.

Both models make bets: one on trust in economic incentives, the other on perpetual issuance. Let’s just call dilution what it is, even if it arrives right on schedule.

Mises did not treat central banking as capitalism; he firmly opposed central banks and any form of centrally controlled monetary policy, arguing that true capitalism requires free-market money. As he wrote in "Human Action":

> “The gold standard is the world’s money. It is not the money of governments and kings, it is the money of the people... The government may destroy the gold standard system. But it cannot replace it.”

Mises was clear that central banking represents government intervention, not a feature of capitalism.

> Hayek likewise favored letting prices fall when output expands, criticizing monetary policy aimed at artificially stabilizing prices. Hayek’s “neutral money criterion” held that prices should fall during real growth, and he opposed using monetary expansion to counteract such benign deflation.

This cuts through the core premise you guys put forth: few monies chasing more goods is BAD. This is just fiat logic in open-source clothing.

I provided enough evidence that this is not the case for any reasonable man.

The security of Bitcoin’s network isn’t dictated by nominal sats/vB fees, but by their real-world purchasing power. As technology and energy markets evolve, the value each sat buys increases, offsetting declining block subsidies and flat fee rates. What secures #Bitcoin is that the cumulative economic value of block rewards (fees plus subsidy or just fees from 2140) remains sufficient to incentivize honest miners, not whether fees rise endlessly on a chart.

Lightning’s off-chain scaling doesn’t weaken base layer security—it specializes it. Most #Lightning channels close cooperatively and can be timed when fees are low; force closes are rare edge cases, typically stemming from unplanned disruptions, not routine use. If on-chain settlement becomes costly, it’s an accurate pricing signal that higher-value transactions should take priority, mirroring traditional system settlement hierarchy.

Bitcoin’s long-term security model relies on efficiently aligning economic demand for settlement with honest miner incentives, not perpetual inflation or fee hypergrowth. As adoption and value rise, users will pay more in aggregate for scarce block space, even if that means fewer, but more valuable, on-chain settlements. Real-world miner costs continue to fall, and network security adapts dynamically—anchored in market forces, not central planning or silent dilution.