Frank Thelen passt zu Deutschland, Deutschland hat nichts besseres verdient.

GM!

I fear this is the beginning of the end. I hope one day we’re not arguing over if bitcoin should move to proof of stake, and larger blocks again so we can cram more pointless scam tokens into bitcoin. “It’s pointless to do proof of work, we can mint tokens so much faster through PoS, what’s it matter they’ll be minted anyway since we removed the guardrails. And let’s just up the block size too. What’s it matter? It’s pointless the blockchain will be huge eventually, let’s just bump up the size now and cut to the chase, we can sell me ordinal tokens!”

I find it extremely funny that a protocol was made for monetary transactions and you think it’s alright to spam and bloat the process, even welcome it. What’s the end goal here? Mint as much garbage tokens and ordinals to sell overpriced UTXOs to weak minded individuals with deep pockets, and VCs and crypto firms get rich? And you cheer that on? They make money and tell you it’s pointless to filter their spam and you lap that up?

I’m all for individuals being individuals and self sovereignty. That’s why I became a part of this community. But I’ll stand up for the integrity of this project when developers and VCs start making actual software changes for me “in my best interest.” Think who benefits the most from these changes. What is the point of putting non transactional data on the block chain? Just because you can, you should be able to permanently alter software code that’s run by the majority of the nodes? That’s shady at best, I’m picking sides.

Yeah I think we’re just going in circles at this point. If every node ran knots with spam filters, and only broadcasted monetary transactions to the mempool, spam would never be included in the block. Those spam transaction wouldn’t exist for a miner to mine. That scenario would never happen unfortunately. Especially when it’s pretty clear that the core developers and large mining companies are only interested in profit and shareholder value. At the end of the day it was incredibly simple to switch my node from core to knots. I just won’t support software that thinks removing features is better for the network at the cost of my storage and node power. I heard an interesting contrast the other day, just because burglars are armed with a hammer to smash the glass out of your windows, doesn’t mean you don’t lock your doors anyways. Don’t ever say it’s pointless to try and filter spam, it’s not. My instance of Bitcoin will never recognize jpegs on the blockchain, and I’m happy with that.

Are you referring to MARA’s slip stream? You pay them thousands of dollars for them to use their hash rate to only include your large data set/ transaction, enough to fill an entire block if you want. It’s using their nodes block template to be selective of certain “transactions” and then using the full force of their hash rate to mine that block with their set filters. There’s actually no guarantee that the block will be mined believe it or not. It’s also the exact equivalent to what I’m trying to explain. I have a a spam filter, they take money to filter everything but spam. The same but very different. I also only have 5 TH backing my template haha. But if I were to mine a block, there wouldn’t be any more than 83kb of data per transaction for my block.

So all in all, my argument is that Core decided to remove my ability to filter what transactions my node sees. That’s why I switched to Knots.

The irony is that a few individuals charged with spearheading freedom through decentralization (i.e. Bitcoin Core) seek to undermine it by mandating how others use their personal Bitcoin nodes; i.e. removing their OP_Return limit options.

In essence, Core is mulcting Bitcoin nodes as game theory or indirect pressure to centralize, control, and destroy Bitcoin which happens to be the only bulwark between you and a totalitarian state.

Bitcoin blockchain bloat is a shelling point for centralization and control.

The real irony is Bitcoin Core falling victim to Control Paradox.

Projecting accusations onto others what your original message actually commits is a red herring nor does it change reality.

“Valid” is logic (rule-based model) and is not necessarily synonymous with effective or true when applied to reality.

Greeks entering Troy’s gates via a wooden horse or Mongols bribing Jin guards to open gates to the Great Wall of China were also valid given neither violated the laws of physics.

Inscriptions exploit SegWit’s discounted witness space to insert arbitrary data, bypassing Bitcoin ‘s intended use as a money. That’s why.

Congress passes bloated pork bills filled with graft and largesse which are also “valid” according to Constitutional protocols.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. 🌳

Inscriptions and ordinals are potentially zero day exploits wrapped in colorful memes.

Incorrect. Nodes broadcast the transactions to the mempool/ miners. That’s the whole point for a node network all running the software in consensus. Think of it this way, when Bitcoin is double spent, or the data of a transaction is too high, it won’t be picked up by then nodes, and broadcasted to the mempool. And it will not be included in the block once it’s mined.

Same goes for spam filters. My private instance of the mempool could be vastly different from the public one at .space, because of the filters I’ve set. Some transactions simply don’t exist on my instance because of my parameters. If I was able to mine that block myself, those transactions that I have filtered out will not exist in that block.

Bitcoin is money or did you not learn this?

That still doesn’t mean that a set of developers can remove my ability to filter out the transactions I don’t want to process on MY node. Telling me that they know better because they can code and I should just accept the changes I don’t understand, I’m good. That’s why I left the fiat banking system.

Bitcoin is MONEY for enemies. “A peer to peer electronic CASH system.” And I’ll die on this hill my friend.

People perverting its use case through exploits is not decentralized use cases. I suggest you check out SOL or ETH. It may be more what you’re looking for.

Liar

When we say “the cap is X,” we’re talking about the consensus block-size limit—nothing else. Un-capping OP_RETURN makes it normal for every block to slam into that limit with random data, and once that feels routine, the most “logical” follow-up from Core is to raise the block size again. Meanwhile, the most “logical” move from alternative node software will be to clap back by filtering off-curve fake pub-key blobs—because if we’re playing Whac-A-Mole, we might as well bring a bigger mallet.

Rare sats and frog jpegs are not why I started a node. I’m not a free cloud data storage provider. Simple as that.

How Inscriptions are not an exploit 🫩

Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit:

1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.

2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").

3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.

The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.