That's... A relief frankly. That makes life a lot less stressful for coinjoin devs.

Cypherpunks dox people.

Very cypherpunk, Satoshi is smiling.

Thanks for stepping up!

Live by the bullshit, die by the bullshit

Cachu is for enemies

"Junk data"

wtf, not very cypherpunk of you nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg

If a midwit becomes aware that he is a midwit, does he cease to be a midwit?

Sir, this is a monetary network.

Correct

I peaked at 1960 at blitz chess.

Don't get to play so much these days, so dropped down below 1700.

Anyone here play?

+1 lichess is great! been using it for 10 years

Hence the last point

Mining is centralized.

The concern around objectionable content is met with appeals to decentralization of mining - i.e a Bitcoin network that doesn't exist.

Until now, what has already been "technically possible" with storing nasty stuff in the chain wasn't.

1. "The" mempool was protected because everyone would filter a sick 100kb OP_RETURN along with *all* OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes.

2. The blockchain was protected because the few miners there are in the world would reject directly submitted malicious content.

This left one option for sabotage: an attacker mining a CSAM OP_RETURN directly into the chain themselves.

Referring to something as impractical as that as "technically possible" is entirely frivolous and it would have been laughable if it had ever happened. An "Unknown" pool finds a block that has a giant 1MB MP4 of something appalling in it? Obvious sabotage that we would universally eschew and I'm confident we would be able to resolve after the fact.

Now however the situation has changed.

F2Pool solicits this stuff directly from the p2p network and Libre Relay nodes along with Core 30 release candidates are willingly relaying it.

There is now an anonymous, p2p network for this attack that's free to access and there is a miner who will oblige it.

The combination of the above, in practice, drops the cost from six figures ($$$,$$$) to three ($$$) and makes it possible to do anonymously.

But more importantly, the mechanism of the attack makes the resulting content appear to have been endorsed by the network at the policy level rather than come as a result of a circumvention that exploits crude consensus rules.

If you still cannot understand the significance of that then you must simply not be aware of the changes that Bitcoin has undergone with all the malicious tweaking of late and the sheer desire there is to take Bitcoin out.

Again: The p2p network has protected itself from attack due to sane default mempool policies, while the blockchain has been inaccessible to attackers due to pools not wanting to be on the hook for blocks containing malicious data.

Those technically-circumventable factors are now gone and there is no practical limitation to the attack beyond cleaning some coins, and paying a couple hundred bucks in transaction fees to get unacceptable content into the chain.

If the network isn't going to protect itself from malicious, consensus-valid activity then the only option left is changing consensus and doing a soft fork to limit OP_RETURNs and perhaps other known types of data carrying.

That idea entered the arena on the mailing list on Friday from someone vocally against Knots (@PortlandHODL) and was received positively by the Core devs who responded. Some embellishment was offered by Luke (add additional data carrying types) to which there was not so much response.

Without community support a fork fails. It's possible if even the Core 30 proponents are OK with limiting this stuff at the consensus level though that there is community support and thus it could be the way forward.

I dislike it because it abandons spam mitigation occurring at the policy level which is where it belongs but the current environment isn't giving us a lot to work with.

It is probably appropriate to characterize the fork as defense we never needed against a specific type of attack versus spam mitigation in general which will have to be continue in parallel.

Fork?

He does RT stuff he doesn't agree with.

Generally I get the sense he isn't buying the Core bullshit though.

Bitcoin was not conceived of or designed as a system where random people would voluntarily run FTP servers and store random files forever for free.

That is being backward rationalized into a monetary system where that kind of architecture must exist for other reason but the incentive issue remains.

No one is going to do this for you, even if they want to for other purposes.

They are going to defend themselves.

They always have been, and are having to switch client to be able to continue doing so due to Bitcoin Core's negligence and downright malice.

Srry fam

Complicit

Anyone amplifying Calle is - at best - a moron.

Yes otherwise I'd let this nonsense go unchallenged

this is the clarkmoody dashboard nostr:npub15n94rarp3n7dz6edx9cugeshn0kcuxtugwu9nzprkpx7yekw7ygqplqru4

Right but there are ways to make estimates anyway.

I'll see your meme, and I'll raise you:

Spam costs money everywhere, Bitcoin is the cheapest system to spam by a mile.

If you hate spam but still relay it around the network then...idk what you are doing. The justifications for that are extremely weak.

In retrospect it makes sense to be grateful for character building episodes.

In the moment, it makes sense to defend yourself with the appropriate vigilance.

That a bunch of small pools aren't just AntPool

I mean to say that it needed to be decreased and we screwed up.

Nostrudle started being weird so trying out iris again.

Amethyst remains undefeated for mobile.

We need Jason for that one.

I still yolo this with NSEC inside the web apps for nostr.

What's a good browser extension?

Once a week this comes in useful.

Doesn't have to, can use the whatever-it-generates.local but it'll only work for the main UI for now. Services won't be accessible.

Nah, I'm way out the game these days

Does coffee not? If so what else triggers them - does chocolate?

They made it deliberately obvious that the corpse in Epstein's cell could not have committed suicide then inorganically spread the meme that he didn't kill himself.

He's obviously not dead and was switched out.

Only question is - how do they get Maxwell out? Or do they just not care about her?

You have gotten stuck at #3. Try to keep up.

Narrative evolution in the political battle to undermine Bitcoin as a monetary network:

1. There's no such thing as "spam" in Bitcoin. Transactions are either valid or invalid.

2. OK spam exists and it's a problem but it'll get priced out by genuine monetary activity.

3. OK the trend in the opposite direction is clear, but the proposed solution of filtering spam at the mempool level does nothing at all as miners can still include this stuff in blocks regardless. (And despite the fact that spam filtration is something we've always done, it's somehow now "censorship" as of spring 2023).

4. OK filtering actually works extremely well and is basically forcing some BitVM schemes to use fake pubkeys instead of OP_RETURN which - for the sake of *maybe* preventing a few KBs of UTXO bloat a year - we need to aggressively resolve *now* by forcing nodes to relay giant OP_RETURNs by breaking the datacarriersize filter in the hopes that BitVMers use OP_RETURN instead.

5. OK yes, this is total and utter submission to the attempts to optimize Bitcoin for data storage as opposed to monetary activity as per every other meaningless crypto but hey, we are just Bitcoin Core and you can run something else if you don't like it - isn't open source wonderful?!

6. OK if large numbers of Bitcoiners actually start running something other than Core we'll simply ignore the message being sent loudly and clearly - that a growing % of people running nodes have no interest in becoming free relays for spammers and miners and that in a sane world, the default implementation puts the priorities of monetary users above scammers and even miners.

7. OK we will invoke disaster scenarios that must come from spam filtration - centralized mining, bad fee estimation, poor block propagation - combine with other fear tactics about "Knots being maintained by one guy".

8. Respond to all debunking of the above disaster scenarios with simple assertions that those who disagree "occupy something other than reality". Rest on laurels of deeply established trust of Core that it is extremely painful for people to question.

Contrast all this with the "filter-boi" side which have not needed to twist themselves into Knots trying to justify the unjustifiable -

1. Spam filters work, they optimize Bitcoin as a payment network rather than a generic database.

2. If you let filters fall into disrepair or maliciously break them then Bitcoin fails the same way cryptos always do - nodes become an abused and disregarded commons while we pretend we're decentralized.