Thread

🛡️
did you know you can get the bitcoin whitepaper from your pruned node? Its stored in the utxoset permanently. Heres a one liner i created to extract it seq 0 947 | (while read -r n; do bitcoin-cli gettxout 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 $n | jq -r '.scriptPubKey.asm' | awk '{ print $2 $3 $4 }'; done) | tr -d '\n' | cut -c 17-368600 | xxd -r -p > bitcoin.pdf This is why we prefer people use large OP_RETURNs instead of 947 outputs that can’t be pruned. OP_RETURNs are probably unspendable so they will never end up in your pruned nodes utxoset. They also produce smaller blocks than inscriptions. Unfortunately they are 4x more expensive… but lifting the filter restriction is one small thing we can do to encourage it over other options that are much worse for bitcoin spam-wise. You definitely don’t want illegal, unprunable stuff in your utxoset permanently, which is why i am running core v30 to do what i can to disincentivize this spam.

Replies (30)

↩ replying to jb55
IMHO that means monetary transactions only. No image or other non-monetary data warrants the bloat created down the road on the main chain. Even the Bitcoin white paper doesn’t need to be imbedded in the Bitcoin time chain. Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should. It helps to think long-term and all users. Hardware requirements for node runners has already become much more expensive and 3rd world plebs deserve their financial sovereignty just as much as we do.
Your technical arguments appear to me to be sound and worthy of very serious consideration and debate. However, it’s important to acknowledge that many in the community feel Core initially dismissed their concerns and then doubled down, which fostered division and mistrust. While the technical rationale holds and is reasonable, the perception of arrogance has fueled ongoing controversy. Many believe Core leaders could have done more to build consensus and dialogue before pushing a fracturing change. Core devs feel insulted, attacked and unappreciated, personally threatened. This is more a community, political, leadership and governance issue than it is a technical issue. IMHO.
🛡️
↩ replying to npub1gfuk...zpvm
Let's recap: - they were technically right - misinformation campaign to discredit and shame them publicly was initiated - this noise completely overwhelmed Bitcoin dev process and distracted people for months if anything all this did was to further separate dev from angry mobs. not sure it accomplished it's intended goal you described. best way to make change in the dev process is to become involved, gain credibility amongst current devs, and then put in your well informed technical review on these changes. this is what everyone else involved in the dev process has done and will continue to do so, even in the presence of misinformed angry mobs.
↩ replying to jb55
Let me be clear, I have great respect for you and everything you’ve done for NOSTR and Bitcoin, as well as the other core devs and leaders in the bitcoin community. You can be technically right and still struggle to manage perceptions. When perception and reality don’t equate, perception becomes reality. I get that this Is far more personal and raw for you than it is for most and I understand why you feel attacked and betrayed by a large chunk of the community. My only motivation is to try and encourage people to consider others perspectives and try to reconcile where possible. I understand that may not be possible in many cases and that people will do so on their own time. I appreciate your willingness to engage with conversation. I hope that people will step up to help manage perceptions and that our community can come to a consensus soon.