What is freenode

Dathon Ohm's soft fork will, if they are crazy enough to activate, cause a chain split

The only way they can avoid a split is if they get more than 50% of hashrate

But - in my opinion - they won't get 51% of hashrate and therefore we'll have a textbook example of a chain split caused by a softfork. It will be a good opportunity for you to learn how bitcoin works

There is no debate on this, and therefore I will not waste time with you on this thread again. This is Nostr, not X or Telegram, and I expect higher standards

You are a disgrace, lying to the plebs like this

"calling it as soft fork seems disengenuous"

You can do better than this

"Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms. Either can cause a chain split

This was explained thousands of times to the RDTS/Knotsi crowd in recent months, on Twitter and in their Telegram group chat. But they were told by Liar nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcltxu3w that "hard" and "soft" mean "split" and "no split"

If you want to talk about controversy, and consensus, and chain splits, please do

When trying to verify Knots in Sparrow, I get a 'missing verification key' notification

nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdshsqg8a6h50dtsdhqtmuzm3mgsynrqcq6tgmznyt92ecfylxgh6wdry5uw47y8r any idea how to fix this?

Of course, nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk is worried about fork futures because he knows that will effectively reveal the lack of support for his fork, just like it did for Segwit2X back in 2017.

so, what, we'd need to do another soft fork later to revert them?

Why not separating both? 1.- Reactive/emergency UASF and 2.- UASF planned 1y ahead but permanent, not temporary.

I think Emergency UASF will have way less consensus around it and when/if the offending block happens IMO it will generate a split chain. The chain with the offending block will be considered bitcoin by most people (including miners, exchanges and businesses)

Planned UASF can have way more consensus around it. I think we could limit OP_Return to 80 in CR and also make inscriptions way more expensive. Maybe we could just remove the segwit discount, or at least, change the 4x to 2x (with the additional benefit of having blocks smaller)

This may already be answered elsewhere, so bear with me if it's been made clear or if the paper was debunked.

The 2018?-ish paper I have seen mentioned in various debates on knots vs core mentions one image already in the blockchain suspected (but not verified) of being CSAM.

If someone dug up the transaction containing this image and made it public or maybe if law enforcement verified that it was indeed CSAM (perhaps they found the victim and/or perpetrator) - would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't continuous and/or "sanctioned" data OR result in a bunch on the Knots side quitting Bitcoin (or maybe forking from a block 7+ years in the past)?

And bet on the prediction market

After much discussion and consideration, I have decided to remove the reactive deployment method and the legal/moral motivations from the BIP document.

I still think those things are important and the reactive deployment may become necessary in an emergency, but I want to continue building consensus and those features were hampering progress.

I hope to have the new draft ready in the next day or two.

Thanks to everyone for your support so far.

the main lesson of the 2017 bcash fork:

the best move was to stay humble and stack sats

If the state says something is illegal, is it ever moral to ignore their law and do it anyhow?

Surely there was some way to filter images and spam that did not require a fork nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7l3vw43

This just seems like bad strategy to reach your goals.

Can you explain why?

One irony of nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7l3vw43's CASF (CSAM activated soft fork) is that users would have to go and see that there's ndeed CSAM in an OP_RETURN, which AFAIK would actually be illegal. (I know I certainly won't do it.)

How cypherpunk of nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59ufwd8nd to threaten that the State will take legal action against anyone who runs core or libbitcoin.

this is bullshit for what its worth

sane people do not think luke or core should control bitcoin and fortunately neither do

Seeing Core V30 percentage of the nodes I don't think they are able to propagate spam.

I hope you and the team can create the soft fork code without rush.

It needs to be well tested and very good quality to achieve the goal to protect Bitcoin from the spam.

he is a liar for calling me a corecuck

which he knows isnt true

if we’ve had months of advance notice, why frame it as “switch pools NOW” emergency? That framing creates urgency that bypasses careful analysis.

Calling it spam’ or a scam coin doesn’t change that it exists and uses valid transaction structures post Taproot. Whether it’s abuse or not, the protocol accepts it. If Taproot witness data doesn’t allow arbitrary data, why does the exploit work? The protocol is the arbiter, not our opinions about intended use.

Satoshi’s spam filters were protocol level consensus rules (like block size), not mempool policy that filters by content type. There’s a difference between “this transaction is too big” and “this transaction contains the wrong kind of data.”

Core 30 is expanding limits that already existed, not removing spam filters entirely. The question is whether expanding those limits is allowing Bitcoin to be what it became post Taproot, or breaking from original design. I’d argue Taproot itself was the change, and Core 30 is just acknowledging the reality that change created.

I’d still like this fundamental question answered: if filtering spam requires ongoing human judgment about what’s real Bitcoin use versus attack, who decides? And doesn’t that create the gatekeeping we’re trying to avoid?

I appreciate the dialogue.

On point 1: Fair, but the OP_RETURN expansion makes data more readily accessible in standard format, which is your concern. The legal risk difference between encrypted and accessible is what Szabo flagged.

On point 2: If Bitcoin can’t store images, what are ordinals/inscriptions doing? Taproot witness data allows arbitrary data that reassembles into images and files. The technical distinction doesn’t change the practical reality.

On point 3: If Bitcoin’s survival requires coordinated human filtering rather than protocol level incentives making attacks expensive, that’s a fundamentally different security model than what Bitcoin was designed for.

On point 4: The disagreement is whether filtering makes Bitcoin ‘better’ or fundamentally changes what Bitcoin is.

What’s the technical solution that doesn’t require ongoing human judgment about legitimate versus illegitimate data?

The emotional hijacking is the tell. When the argument is “don’t think, just act NOW,” you know it’s manipulation, not reasoning.

You are correct on every count. OP_RETURN limits also have 0% efficacy. People are being lead around by their emotions and have sadly gone full retard.

Reminds me of when everyone got tricked by Covid narratives or when many “freedom” proponents on nostr went rabid-stupid for trump in 2023.

The human psyche is so easy to hack and attack. Watching it happen again, pretty sad.

It's not accurate actually.

Nodes are getting double counted when they update from Knots 28 to 29.

Bitcoin mechanic explains in a tweet I saw.

Ok, what is going on here? Up almost 6% in 48h? Even I have a hard time believing this is organic adoption (hope I’m wrong). Or did the core devs provoked plebs more than usual on Twitter? What am I missing? If this is organic and not a Sybil, this is YUGE!

I tried adjusting the settings, it won't accept

Why can't I accept sub 1 sat transactions using knots?

I love Knots but the latest update crashed it. Running it on Umbrel ( I am a pleb without programming skills)

I had the Blockchain in a different Drive and am not finding how to fix it

I was able on Core with chat help to move the Blockchain to the other drive and the switch to Knots was easy. But struggling to fix it on the new version

Most likely will have to reinstall everything from scratch and on a single drive

Would be very helpful if one could select the storage device on the installation process. Specially thinking that many will have to upgrade de drive to larger ones at some point in time

So the message in bitcoins first block made it a spam and it shouldn't be mined today by your standards? Interesting.

There have been inscriptions literally since the first block....