1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.
2) Sure, miners mine because they get a reward, otherwise we would never have the hashpower that we have now. If block subsidy goes away, miners only live off transaction fees and if they are not coming in due to empty blocks, it will make many of them go out of business and in fact be a big attack on bitcoin. The first thing we need to make sure is, that the blocks are "as full as possible". Only this can guarantee infinite success. The rest comes afterwards. If we manage to do this with "real transactions only", then fine. But I have my doubts about that, as the bitcoin main layer is not a payment network, ppl use cheap 2nd layer solutions.
3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?
Nobody knows that. But also, it does not matter what "core" thinks, bitcoin is decentralized. If that happens, I will flip to bitcoin knots and agree that I was wrong. I would also support the hardfork that it would cause. Bitcoiners are mostly sane and intelligent people and VC money does not direct the course of bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already proof of that. I, who am an actual user of if and therefore have the most "say" in this, will not support Bitcoin becoming an ad platform.1) Yes. Some ppl argue that Luke Dashjr and others always hated ordinals and he was just waiting for a moment to attack again. Also, youtubers like Matthew Kratter and others who MASSIVELY attack the current update, were in favor of it back then. So it would work the other way around I guess, but somehow, a lot of people changed their viewpoint. Taproot is really the culprit here and almost everyone accepted it. The current change where people lose their hair over, is basically just an improvement to the taproot idea, as far as I understand it.
2) Sure, miners mine because they get a reward, otherwise we would never have the hashpower that we have now. If block subsidy goes away, miners only live off transaction fees and if they are not coming in due to empty blocks, it will make many of them go out of business and in fact be a big attack on bitcoin. The first thing we need to make sure is, that the blocks are "as full as possible". Only this can guarantee infinite success. The rest comes afterwards. If we manage to do this with "real transactions only", then fine. But I have my doubts about that, as the bitcoin main layer is not a payment network, ppl use cheap 2nd layer solutions.
3) >At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level?
Nobody knows that. But also, it does not matter what "core" thinks, bitcoin is decentralized. If that happens, I will flip to bitcoin knots and agree that I was wrong. I would also support the hardfork that it would cause. Bitcoiners are mostly sane and intelligent people and VC money does not direct the course of bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is already proof of that. I, who am an actual user of if and therefore have the most "say" in this, will not support Bitcoin becoming an ad platform.
No worries, I also like the points you make, makes me rethink my opinion as well and also sharpens the image for myself when thinking about it.
2) I think it's not a hardfork, it will be along the lines "we accept the bigger OP_RETURNS until block 888888, but blocks following after that, will be rejected and no longer according to the protocol". This would anyways lead into a hardfork, because this would be an abuse case of the bitcoin chain that we try to fix.
But we must understand that a filter is neither a hardfork nor a fix. A filter simply sais "whoever is using bitcoin knots for his miner, will not be able to find new blocks that contain spam, they will only allow blocks that come from the outside". Running a bitcoin knots node does absolutely nothing, as far as I understand. It's only relevant for miners that are making use of it. If knots would not allow the spam-blocks, it would already have created a hard fork, but Luke Dashjr did not want that (yet... obviously).
1) But such a thing that you desire, can never exists, as long as you have any property that allows for custom data to be attached? IMHO us removing the limit anyways won't do anything and it's worth the risk, BECAUSE we can always come together again and decide that this was a bad idea and we should roll back. It's like when you dig a pond for you to bath in, you also have to live with the birds that will find this pond and drink from it and maybe shit in. It's just something that is there and what is there gets being used. It's the most natural thing. There is no pool/pond in the world, that is only used by humans, even though the sole purpose it was being built, is to bath in it. Other animals and species find other use cases that do not get in the way. Bitcoin knots is - apart from merging what they should not merge just like that - the chemicals you would throw into that pond to keep others from using it. I myself like a natural pond, I don't like pools with chlorine and so and I don't care if a ducks takes a dump into it. This is not my world, it is OUR world and we can and have to live alongside each other. A bird will not come to the pond if a human is in it. The economical incentive is not worth the risk. But if no humans are there, it will take a bath and take a sip.
2) Nothing is forever. Initially, there was no OP_RETURN limit, then it got implemented and now it is being removed again. If we find that this was a bad idea, we aren't fucked, we can just remove that part from the code again.
See the first quarter webinar for how the numbers stack up (Saylorâs segment of the video). https://www.strategy.com/investor-relations
thx! already in bed but will check.
But isn't he on a heavy leverage? Like if BTC would go to 50k again, it would all bust? After all, he could become such a target at 500k Bitcoins that could be liquidated.
But why would he invest in irregular steps? Why not all at once or something? Or why not OTC (maybe he does but I don't know). And he did in fact take loans, he said that over and over. I think he also did stock splits to buy more. Either a tanking bitcoin price or people selling his stock for some reason, could potentially blow his company. But what the heck to I know. I would never buy that stock, because I have many questions but find no answers. Unlike raw bitcoin, where I have lots of answers to all kinds of critics.
I mean, if he didn't buy in the first place, we could have bought cheaper for the past few years probably. And not sure how these 500k bitcoin (single Bitcoin, not USD) will hit the market is another question, but you can be pretty sure that the price will tank for a longer time....... if..... the US doesn't claim it. I see why humans would buy his stock rather than the raw asset, but I would shit my pants. Lots of people are too convinced by what Saylor believes and how he is behaving. I'm not sure if this guy is the be all know all. He seems to see himself as that, which is a red flag in itself imho. If his stock blows, all the "hodlings" of people with his stock will take a huge haircut. As we know, in trading, there is for every loss on one side, a win on another.
No, you also need to participate in lots of interviews and convince everyone that you are a true maxi. I'm thankful for Saylors inputs and world views, as they are indeed extremely interesting. But my uneducated self fears that if he is sucking the whole market empty while his company is in decline (apart from the bitcoin thing), I can't help but think he will blow up at some point (and he potentially he already is aware of that or that's even the plan). Just think about Strategy blowing up and the US getting his BTC... If he is just the puppet for the US to create a reserve already, without "officially buying in yet", they can buy more at a lower price. Seriously, how can such a company buy 13k bitcoin every here and there? If you take Saylor by his word, why didn't he take all his "loans" at once? I don't get it and when I tried to research it, I didn't find any info that would make sense to me. Saylor might be the next price bomb, we don't know. The fear of Strategy being overleveraged and about to blow exists since many years now, yet he still buys more and more. If anyone can explain this reasonably to me, I'd highly appreciate it.
Can't we just stick to discussion? Do we really need that kind of drama? Truly silly... This discussion is interesting and important. Everything around it is not important, if not totally unrelated.
I want to say that I'm not 100% sure that my perceived scenario will 100% be as written, as there might always emerge things that we do not see yet.
1) You also "run" a plug that sits in your wall, that allows for TCP traffic. That traffic does not care if you are watching porn or browsing wikipedia and also, it shouldn't. TCP CAN be used to stream porn, although it was never meant with that goal. Even with unlimited OP_RETURN, the consensus rules stay the same. And AFAIK (I'm not 100% sure): What your node filters does not matter at all, because miners will find a valid block and as long as this does not cause a hardfork, your node is going to accept the found block. Your filter basically is only for you and the users of your node. And for Matthew Kratter, so he can say "8% of nodes are Bitcoin-Knots nodes", which is a meaningless number, as of my current understanding.
2) Yes, monetary transactions will be more expensive IF THE BLOCKS ARE FULL, which is an important note. First thing is, that we want to have full blocks, for keeping the miners around long term and not put them into a stop and go mode. That would be the worst thing that could happen to BTC, because the 10 minute block time would become heavily volatile. Also, monetary transactions will move to a second layers solution, which is already the case now for small payments. Your spam concern is imho correct, I also am a bit afraid of that. Even if economical incentives speak against it, there is actor A which has 9999999x more financial power than actor B which also wants to use the mainlayer once a year. That being said: Spam is already possible and it doesn't seem to happen often. Having a bigger OP_RETURN does not automatically enable spam, it just opens the path to developers for easier NFT access, but it's not like the could not do that stuff already with multiple combined transactions. The block size limit remains, so your node doesn't suddenly have to get bigger SSDs and so, as you should anyways calculate with full blocks when you want to decide on how long long the capacity of your SSD will need to last.
>it's already so hard to make ppl understand what btc is
Nobody understands what bitcoin is. Not you and not me, but we have a vastly deeper understanding of it than the majority of people. But you see on this debate, that even the biggest experts on bitcoin have different approaches. Bitcoin is what democracy decides it to be, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe that YOU got it 100%, then clearly you should work on yourself, before you start on others. I can't count the times where I had an opinion but I wasn't aware of a simple additional fact that made me completely shift my opinion. Some of that stuff is already known but you don't know it yet, some of that stuff will emerge only in the future.
Thanks for writing back man, I appreciate such discussions and I don't claim to be right, I'm just not convinced otherwise yet. :)
ah i was on "trending". ok all good. whoever upvotes that shit, it's an age old meme, older than all the facebook memes combined.
Let's start from the bottom:
3. Agree.
2. Filtering is not neutral towards the protocol in my opinion. If there is a property for custom data and always has been, it will be used for custom data. That data size scales with transaction fees, which is good. Also the block size limit still makes sure we don't become ETH 2.0. A JPEG will always cost SO MUCH MORE than any transaction, so if normal transactions start to be 5$, which is not unreasonable thanks to lightning, a JPEG would cost hundreds if not thousands of dollar of fees. If a transaction is 10$, that JPEG will be more and more unaffordable.
1. Lots of people have lots of opinions. This debate is not over for me, i simply agree with "Shinobi", that the nodes should stay neutral and that you nurture behavior over economical incentives and NOT over morales.
Bitcoin is NOT a monetary network! That was the intention of it, but bitcoin is a simple database of transactions, that have the ability of an "attachment". Bitcoin is USED as monetary network, amongst other things. Obviously, these attachments can used in a non-monetary-transaction driven form, but that's simply the nature of such a protocol. The block limit remains, the financial incentives clearly go against spam, so I don't see why we would need to "filter" stuff out. Nothing neutral about that. If they removed the block limit, I would see it completely otherwise. Also they having merged it in the midst of the discussion is a poor fucking joke.
Ok buy YOU as the bitcoin pope understand it? I appreciate your perspectives a lot, but I would also appreciate you being a bit more down to earth in your discussion style. You are - after all - not speaking out for all bitcoiners and I disagree with you on the OP_RETURNS issue (I also disagree with the idiot who merged that shit in the midst of the discussion).
Bitcoin Won't Be Fine, Bitcoin Will Be Fine
https://blossom.primal.net/72e09e7972e9501edbbb15133046cb2afaf9e8588d2798f5ac1de070415cdb48.mp4
i'm split on the pull request. i see the benefits but not the drawbacks to the current implementation (block size limit is still unaffected). but i disagree with the idiot who just merged that shit without the discussion having been even close to over.
DO NOT UPGRADE BITCOIN CORE!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaAjhhkFjU8
#bitcoin-core #bitcoin-core nostr:nprofile1qy8hwumn8ghj7mn2w4khqtndv5hszythwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmny9uqzpprrqa5g5z0vzy5k06c9gnnc485gcj84qufv88k5j8ljkmaqrxhgkgzyc0
Hey does anyone see this message? Or am I on my own? đ
