this problem is clearly better addressed at the hardware level...
I'm working on a fork of Primal that forces note body to lower case...
nostr:npub1s5yq6wadwrxde4lhfs56gn64hwzuhnfa6r9mj476r5s4hkunzgzqrs6q7z nostr:npub16c0nh3dnadzqpm76uctf5hqhe2lny344zsmpm6feee9p5rdxaa9q586nvr Great conversation on free speech/Primal/Noster. Just created an account. Ready to stop doom scrolling on X. 😊
Welcome, fellow traveller
I spent generational wealth on some Cuban cigars for a best friend’s Stag Do (bachelor party) 🦌 🇨🇺
But crucially, it was research for a documentary 🔍 🎥
Here is the link to the full video in case you missed it.
https://youtu.be/UPp0Xbk4bFo?si=O-0soh-JXKU8uJzJ
https://video.nostr.build/4fb2a2e11aae8e287ce0e90c7ffed71c8814c707113a696497da685cf267db07.mp4
nostr:npub1lr2zzf989mvf393y0tv39ara6a4vddkd6y87z784up9vl6ks6j3qtudl6a, they seem quite reliant on Wallet Of Satoshi out there. This seems like somewhat of an achilles heel, especially in light of WoS' sudden withdrawal from the US...
Did you notice any other solutions in play, allowing Cubans to custody / spend sats ?
Thanks for another great video.
Dissatisfaction fermented amidst the rigging, whispers of mutiny like barnacles clinging to the ship's hull, gnawing at its authority...
You could dockerise the latest nostr nests repo, and package it up for deployment on the Umbrel app store.
This seems like a logical next step.
Giving individual miners the ability to construct their own block templates will go a long way.
This is the goal of Stratum V2.
Attacker doesn't need to buy/burn any Bitcoin.
Attacker phones up mining pool, asks them how much fiat they would like, transferred into their bank account, in order to fill blocks full of jpegs.
Mining pool names it's price.
Attacker prints fiat and transfers it to miner.
Blocks are churned out either empty, or full of jpegs.
No movement of Bitcoin price.
Network becomes unusable to a large portion of users.
at the very least it is serving as a reminder to all other mining pools that total transaction fee revenue is not the only game theoretic metric that mining pools should be concerned with, when it comes to constructing their block templates.
if, in persuit of maximum fees, and at the exclusion of economic bitcoin transactions, pools opt to fill blocks full of jpegs, it's quite possible they end up causing long term harm to the network, and those higher fees ultimately become worth(much)less.
Scenario A: A State actor, by way of the money printer, prints infinite amounts of fiat, and uses it to pay mining pools to exclusively mine empty blocks.
Block space available for economic bitcoin transactions evaporates, and for many, bitcoin becomes unusable.
Scenario B: A State actor, by way of the money printer, prints infinite amounts of fiat, and uses it to pay mining pools to fill blocks full of jpegs…
In terms of functional outcome, what is the difference between these two scenarios?
what a belter 🕺
instead they will just print fiat and use it to pay miners to fill blocks full of jpegs.
"The goverment will run out of money eventually ".
This is the point.
They will never run out of money, due to the fact that they have access to a money printer.
No other users of Bitcoin have access to a money printer.
This is exploitation of Bitcoins game theory, and is not a function of the free market.
They can sustain this attack long enough to ruin Bitcoin, before coming anywhere close to hyper inflating their national currency.
You didnt answer the question.
If a Government pays miners with fiat, to mine empty blocks (or move sats back and forth, as you describe it), and their express purpose for doing so is to make Bitcoin unusable, do you still regard this behaviour as legitimate?
If so, I contend you are either being obtuse, or you are an enemy of the long term success of Bitcoin.
When the inflation bug occured in Bitcoin, ~10 years ago, which allowed anyone to mint an almost infinite supply of Bitcoin, did we regard this behaviour as legitimate, purely because it was possible, within the bounds of the current code base?
No. We recognised that it facilitated behaviour that was totally destructive to the long term health of the network, and we fixed the bug.
'Leaving it to the free market' would have been disasterous in this circumstance.
Point being, 'leaving it to the free market' doesn't always fix everything.
Bitcoin is not perfect.
It takes wisdom to know when things are best left alone, and when a light touch of intervention is required, to maintain the integrity of a most precious vessel.
if a State actor offered mining pools large amounts of fiat to mine empty blocks, would you consider this reasonable and objective?
if not, what's the difference between this scenario, and a State actor offering mining pools large amounts of fiat to fill blocks full of jpegs?
Functionally speaking, both are a censorship attack on Bitcoin.
it's quite possible we'll see more and more node runners implement the Ordisrespectors patch. This way, the problem can be rectified, without involving the miners.
The home of Heartbeat.
Merry Christmas Joe.
total fees should not be the sole factor that determines which transactions a miner includes in a block.
the long term health of the network should also be considered.
getting paid to fill blocks full of jpegs, while exclusing actual economic transactions, may be lucrative in the short term, but if it harms the network over the long term, those higher fees may end up being worthless.
miners, like all other users of the system, have a vested interest in protecting the long term health of the network.
treating the network as a jpeg storage engine is antithetical to this end.
