no fence is a default fence of arbitrary height 0…
my mempool my rules, you are not getting this component.
we determine what transactions are valuable TO US.
the blockchain will still aggregate those values for everyone else if they are properly participating.
you are an idiot
free speech brother, don’t need an invitation from you.
my comment in no way detracts from your shoutout, but it possibly alerts others to criticism that is valid and that they are not aware of.
so there’s no room for criticism of people who have done great things?
but you aren’t “making it so”.
you are encouraging it.
shitcoiners will abuse what they can still abuse.
it’s an observation of path dependency.
citrea abuses the current set of standardness, which only exists because of past ‘exploits’.
changing standards to “fix” this just leads to the next abuse, which leads to the next “fix”.
this is ETH. we don’t want ETH.
low key fire and I will self reflect on this..
good thing I did not say anything negative about any of those other things, and have donated many sats to Odell, opensats, nostr dev, etc.
I am pointing out that he specifically avoids posting on twitter while still observing the discussion that happens there, and this in particular is bad. especially right now when a voice like his would go a long way to new participants in the bitcoin ecosystem.
new participants don’t listen to RHR or citadel. they don’t use NOSTR. they are on twitter pumping MSTY and shitcoining on bitcoin and there aren’t a lot of good voices to steer them in the right direction.
can definitely agree there, but again you are now assuming that the next shitcoin group won’t pop up and find a new non-standard abuse to exploit.
we should not accommodate these behaviors and introduce an incentive to attack bitcoin to get devs to ack changes that are “technically sound”
the amount of harm they do assumes they continue their attack indefinitely into the future.
do you not think the cumulative harm would be minimized by the market outpricing these transactions over the next few years (it won’t take longer than that)?
ok I missed just about everything? let’s start with one thing please and thanks
right, but we already made alterations to even include OP_RETURN in the first place because of things like colored coins.
citrea, ordinals, et al, are just the latest group to exploit data anchoring.
why should we continue to accommodate when the next group will just come along and force the next update?
this is the wrong approach, we should be allowing the market to increase the necessity of financial transactions. this will price out non-standard bad actors in a much safer and more incentive-aligned way in my opinion.
the question is whether it will take too long and too much bloat will occur in the meantime, to which my answer is a resounding no.
I guess we just disagree on the approach, either way thank you for actually engaging with me on this discussion, it’s been hard.
for me, this indicates the extreme nascency of the monetary network, and it also ties into misconceptions about bitcoin’s trajectory and purpose.
the sub-1k sat utxos (I am guessing) are probably mostly due to actual transactions of this size being sent around since inception? the actual amount and rate of increase which comes from data anchoring is a fraction. (total utxo bloat is a different story, but if most of that is coming from standardized shitcoining doesn’t it negate the entire argument of aligning incentives?)
altering standardness in anticipation of further growth in non-standard outputs is putting the cart before the horse.
why are we catering to a single set of shitcoining behavior that is producing an extremely small set of utxos which happen to be unspendable then?
if we want to talk about who’s hurting who, citrea intentionally created their shitcoin to be this way, and Core is going to push a change to accommodate their existence.
the next group will come along and push the standardness bounds and what, we’re just going to do this again for them?
how does this have anything to do with “me choosing to harm my node”?
move the goalposts and ignore the original question of who’s in the majority, nice 👍
how many of those core nodes are active participants in reviewing release notes?
what about people like me who are running older core and trying to vocally dissent?
do I not deserve vulnerability fixes or other updates because I don’t support removing my mempool options by default?
the majority of engaged users (node runners) I believe are against this PR.
unfortunately just by using “who’s running what” the discussion nuance is completely bypassed and if the PR is merged on this assumption we can’t go back. and I am left abandoned on the side of the road forever running an old Core or having to fork off, which i don’t want to do currently.
i don’t believe it is a minority…
influencoor: omg i love nostr so much, real discussion and engagement!!
pleb: leaves a critical, reasoned comment hoping to open a discussion
influencoor: 🦗🦗🦗
I love #nostr but the trending feeds are all memes, random influencer posts, buzzbot.
There is an extremely important discussion happening in real time regarding the most important technology that currently exists for humanity, and it is not happening here.
Let’s not pretend like this is the new public square yet.
It can be, but we have work to do, and part of that work is discussing the real world with PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE with you.
#grownostr by being involved on twitter, put your npub in your profile, post it in replies, steer the discussion.
Don’t run from it.