I’m not necessarily against images being on the blockchain, just not at the expense of basic peer to peer trades.. The fees are stupid..

“$1.5 million of BTC was just moved for $3.40” was an excellent value prop. Same for fees for transfers to other countries v. Western Union… Those are gone now..

I get it, we are trading the value for images now on the blockchain for the cost of BTC transfers, let the free market win, but ideally there is a better way to do it without destroying our blocks/ memoool..

I have created a #blockstream #green wallet but I know nothing about liquid btc yet 😕

lq1qqwzale3np3gqewthneq5rz6qx8u90hj8rz3vg2axt7lrv7nuw99tca9qkfhqmlmx0r23mg89uupre8qfys6wgca2x0u4alymr

With respect, while I don’t think the 80 byte OP_RETURN thing should actually be filtered because it’s a lot point by now, there IS a critically important difference between filtering and censoring in this context:

• One is a question of WHAT is allowed in the bitcoin chain, which is a universal policy. Every node does this and this is similar to arguments with RBF and the like. In a sense, this is the only thing bitcoin does, is filter with extreme prejudice, WHAT goes into the chain.

— there is an argument to be had on whether the byte issue is good/bad, but it’s not censoring privacy transactions or coinjoins. It’s a filter that *happens* to catch one kind.

• The other is a question of WHO gets into the blockchain. F2Pool here had the audacity to claim that a certain address, with a certain balance, is owned by some “evil” people because some govt body, without trial or due process, has declared their evil acts and demanded punishment & eviction from market activities.

Regardless of whether this particular kind of filtering should be considered good, or that it potentially sets a bad precedent, they are not the same thing in terms of the danger and subjectivity of the decisions.

Deciding WHAT goes into the chain is a process of defining the bitcoin system, deciding WHO can get into the chain is censorship and violating the basic tenant of neutrality.

The phrase isn’t “Bitcoin is for everything,” it’s “Bitcoin is for everyone. nostr:note14hm0a4xz7v5dmsmslj6h694vmnlytc59k4mv2s254clm3zdcpzmsujjv3x

Well yeah, but isnt the OCEAN roadmap to go full stratum v2? After such point, wouldnt you admit that the decentralisation profile is a lot better?

Ok it looks like Luke has confirmed this is a filtering based on the OP_RETURN byte limit. So it’s not specifically filtering coinjoins, they just happen to be over the 42 byte limits for whatever reason.

Both decisions seem odd to me, Luke says there’s no reason for using that many bytes, Samourai says the byte limit has been 80 for ages (which it has).

So now I’m curious what that data is for in this scenario. And why either side cares about this. Seems like both have the capacity to fix this if the excessive OP_RETURN data isn’t even necessary. Also curious if this is something that specifically distinguishes whirlpool transactions from other types (which there might be numerous other ways that this happens), just because it would seem beneficial to look as inconspicuous as possible rather than stand out in whatever way their use of that may imply.

In other words, this seems like something either party could fix potentially but knowing how stubborn they both are, it might not change.

IF YOU KEEP THIS UP I WILL FIND YOUR OUTLET AND UNPLUG YOU BOT.

95.92% custodial is a joke. Explore non-custodial solutions before you get rugged again nostr:note1sr7haf295nmhdq5n26xxrz5whe33h40twyqzr45aq66z05gxk6nsj96cqu

If you are on nostr and don’t have have a wallet linked to accept zaps stop whatever you are doing and start right now. 😉

I was going to zap this note but I couldn’t. Sats are on the table!

When I hear people say they don’t cook, I can’t even imagine living like that.

Apple TV has produced so many promising shows and films that they hyper-woke right into the bin.