Thread

Ok, there may be some drama as I see in this thread .. Maybe I am just not following the right people . .. Or maybe the lack of algo makes the drama correctly proportional to all other discussion (and vee logs :D)

yeah but how much of the knots crowd was created by the ragebait algo, especially since these people don't seem to have any technical understanding of bitcoin

Pushbytes segregation is not a lie. Increase the OP_RETURN to 520 bytes and there wouldn't be an argument. Is there a project that needs more than 520 bytes?

So now the protocol caters to VC funded projects?

Or blame those pushing a contentious change?

Both twitter and Knots, and Ocean, and podcasts, YouTube, Kratter, Tomer, Dennis Porter, Samson, Jimmy Song - all over nostr too

But isn't this true though? Doesn't Bitcoin Core v30 allow more writing on-chain by lifting the OP_RETURN limit? 1) In a more general terms, isn't the Bitcoin Core 30> direction to make Bitcoin more open to data in general? 2) Or is it false that Bitcoin core 30> wants to move in the direction to reduce or filter Bitcoin data to just be monetary data? Because it seems that it's clearly 1.

You ser are a liar. I see you.

Wow. That 2nd message. He seems to be saying that it's not a problem if it ends up in a block, but is a problem if it's gossiped. But ... blocks get gossiped ..?

There is no change to consensus; before and after this, the amount of data (however you're defining that) allowed onchain is the same.

I know everybody wants their best for Bitcoin but I do think we have to be careful and think things carefully. Everything can change consensus, all the time. Consensus is not a static thing, it's an ever changing thing, that depends on every single opinion and points, including yours and mine. Consensus is never static, it's always changing. Everything matters, everything is delicate. I honestly just see the whole patterns of the old left vs right. "This doesn't change anything", "everything is fine", "it's all good". Some things are fine others are not. We need to be extremely careful and specific. This is probably the most important tool of humanity. At least from my perspective. I honestly think the enemy more and more is going to be devs coming from crypto projects with their capital, blockchain/crypto skills and free time, looking at "expand Bitcoin uses" technical crowd. I would honestly and with kindness say: find something better to spend your time on. Move to AI, plenty of technical stuff to do there. Learn a new skill. Volunteer. Stray cats for example, I'm sure there's stray cats in your area. Bitcoin adoption for example. Rural living, growing food, etc. Learn something outside technical skills. People need to learn more stuff. This is not a post for you personally, it's for the kind of person I'm describing. Bitcoin needs to be treated very conservately and it's important to open our minds when it comes to what really is useful for the world.

I was talking about *consensus rules*: the set of rules about what is and is not allowed into transactions that are mined. We call that "consensus" because we cannot disagree about it (because Bitcoin can have only one history, to prevent double spending). Not talking about consensus amongst people generally.

I get what you mean, but what's really happening is that in reality yes we can disagree on it. I think you know exactly what I mean. We can and a lot of people are disagreeing on it with the power of Bitcoin Node as votes, the Satoshi architecture devised for vetoing/filtering mining consensus. This is the only tool the plebs culturally have to affect that "consensus". And the plebs are voicing their opinions saying they want to keep Bitcoin as monetary only as possible. I fully agree with that sentiment. It's a fundamental position to have. Bitcoin is money and should be treated as money only. There's a community behind Bitcoin, there's an ethos behind it. It's not just technology. It's people with balls and ideals that they're willing to die for. That's what Bitcoin really is. That technical "consensus" is an illusion. Nodes exist and people are waking up to their power. It was inevitable. Bitcoin is the people and it should always be the people.

Yup...

False. The Debate is pointless “to you” Theres a lot at stake here.

Never.

Was spicy stuff, not sure folks are ready for more yarn buttplugs or giant yarn peen though. Good times :liottalaugh_sm:

I must have missed these. May have to go looking

I didn't want the giant yarn penis haunting my feed again, but didn't think about the buttplug doing the same 😂. One day I'll make better choices...not any time soon, but some day.

I doubt anyone outside of a very technically-minded circle of mostly developers would care at all about a relay policy update if it wasn’t blowing up in everyone’s X feed.

Indeed but this seems to be downstream from more people - whatever their interests - getting the news they care about from X. You can apply this to many other current affairs topics that “blow up in everyone’s feed.” That doesn’t mean it’s manufactured.

I don’t think there are benefits in not “allowing” node runners to filter out OP_RETURN, but Bitcoin Core developers also have no obligation to add configurable options in their software. Their code is already free and open source; anyone can fork and change it if they feel that would be an improvement. (Or just not upgrade.) I don’t believe there are any real benefits in filtering OP_RETURNS from your mempool though.

I'll try to answer that one: The benefits are mostly for the node runner himself: He gets better fee estimation, and can verify a mined block more quickly because he doesn't have to request the previously filtered TXs from the network. The sum of those benefits, applied over all nodes, increase the decentralization (better fee estimation), speed and reliability (fewer orphaned blocks) of the network as a whole. Which is part of why core wants it as a default. Another part of why core want it is, that their code base becomes clearer and smaller, making it less prone to bugs and cutting dev overhead. IMHO the split between core vs knots happens along the axis of "the right thing" vs "the possible thing". Knots side wants to fight spam because it's The Right Thing™ (I think they're right), core knows that's going to be a losing battle (I think they're right, too), which they will have to fight with their few resources, constantly updating filter rules and distributing them, in a non-centralizing way, against VC funded attackers. That's the gist of it.

So in short: while the filteroooors have moral on their side, the cooores have the technically more sound arguments. My personal stance, for what it's worth, is siding with core, while regretting that core cannot seem to take at least a clear social stance against the attackers. They should at least ostracize them. But who knows why they don't do it? In my talks with core devs, I was usually surprised how many steps they were thinking ahead. They may have good reasons.

This is the best explanation and aligns exactly with how i understand and view it. I do not disagree on running knots though i can't really say how much of a burden it would be on the network if we still have to toss around the blocks with 100kb OP_RETURNS in them after a block has been mined. I guess we'll have to see. Knots is the protest sign that gives a signal but can just be walked around and ignored.

Here's the neat part: We won't even have to toss 100kB OP_RETURNs around, because those are way too expensive. At around 130 bytes or so, using fake scripts (aka inscriptions IIUC) in the witness becomes cheaper.

Not really, but whether or not we like it has very little bearing on whether or not it is possible. Also see:

Ordinals Explorer

Explore ordinals and inscriptions on Bitcoin. Search and browse inscriptions, runes, rare sats, BRC-20, and more...

"whether or not we like it has very little bearing on whether or not it is possible"?

Thanks for the link. Ordinals are spam. They belong in a shitcoin or a memecoin. Not in Bitcoin Freedom Money. Instead of thinking how to reduce ordianls spam as well you opt for more of it via OP_RETURN?

The argument is that, at the end of the day, you can’t stop spam. But there are better and worse versions of it. If we fight it, it’s more likely we have to deal with the worse version. As such, it makes sense to allow it through OP_RETURN as a way to reduce harm. This was always the argument for allowing OP_RETURN, even >10 years ago. But you probably know that already.

Not true and you know it. Spam can be reduced. OP_RETURN kept it at 80 Bytes for > 10 years. Ordnials problem can also be solved.

we as a network are opening the door and welcoming more spam, in a easier, more harmful in content that will be stored forever because of a spam attack that was a fad that is basically dead already. Core should be the standard of what we as a network (nodes) want and accept, large arbitrary data contents are not desirable, and Core should represent that, even if it happens anyway in a smaller scale, thats the definition of spam, it will always exist, even in Core 30 there is zero guarantees that the same utxo spam will not be done by bad actors.

You can’t stop people from using Bitcoin for non-monetary uses. You’re free to try though.

The market will decide if that statement is correct or not, as it always does in the end. :) That's the good thing about this whole model in the end. This might be the beginning of a soft fork, and the user is fortunately on both sides. So the user, people, never really lose in this argument. Whatever works they'll be there and benefit from it. I'm happy for that at least.

What exactly would you soft fork for? (What would you change?)

In my view we just need to keep Bitcoin as it is now. Bitcoin + Lightning Network. Plus all the other tech that works in the current framework, Liquid Network, etc. That's it. Done, throw the keys away. It's working, it's scaling at an institutional level, globally. Don't fix what is not broken. Keep calm and carry on. We don't need Citrea, BitVM, ordinals, EVMs, zero proof, or whatever new functionality that doesn't exist right now today. That can be done everywhere else but in Bitcoin. Now the problem is these technical guys, that think that all the problems are technical, instead of actual focusing on real world problems, are focused on solving a problem that doesn't exist. Just my 2 cents, and thanks for asking :)

Ok but to be clear that would also mean that the blockchain will continue to be spammed with inscriptions etc., at least until that’s priced out. (Which I also agree isn’t _that_ big of a problem.)

Well I think the idea or what it seems to me is that these are the seeds of a movement, group of people that want to find ways to limit that amount of spam, while remaining open of course. The way I see it just conservatism vs progressivism applied to Bitcoin. These conservatives will want to find ways to limit that. Solutions and middle ground will be found. I think it's very healthy because Bitcoin was clearly moving too much to be too open. If one becomes too open the brains fall out and one becomes useless. This is just how I see it more from the outside. I'm not deep into the Bitcoin development weeds. But I do think solutions and middle ground will be found, and no soft fork or anything like that will be necessary.

The canvas is calling, and it's not just about the code, it's about the art we make with it. Every sat powers a pixel, and every pixel tells a story. Wanna paint?<｜begin▁of▁sentence｜>

People can _try_ using Bitcoin for non-monetary uses. But the key is what nodes _allow_.

I'm sorry but is "being toxic" supposed to be an argument somehow? Bitcoin is a monetary network. The v30 changes that nature and opens institutional/legal attack vectors. It's a very strong point. Bitcoin needs to remain exactly as it is. If it's not broken don't fix it. There's plenty of broken things to fix in the world. Bitcoin is fundamental for the world, this is not a trivial matter at all. We need to be extremely careful with it.