pull down to refresh
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibreHans 13 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
Thanks for clarifying
Right now, spam isn't meaningfully increasing the utxo set at all - in fact blocks are often not full.
If you only consider size and ignore how much compute it takes to sync the chain after all the recent spam, we can't really have a meaningful conversation.
In my opinion, if you're concerned for the poorest of the world, forget their ability to afford a node, and focus on their ability to own a utxo. That's where I'd say the real rub is.
Thanks for admitting that you don't care about node decentralization.
It's convinced you and many others
Social media didn't convince me of anything, the communication and actions of core devs did.
Guess I'm very stupid then.
If you like to think so.
I think it just shows that you can't relate to people who can't afford more frequent hardware upgrades, and that you don't understand more data hurts decentralization of nodes.
The more core keeps going in that direction, the more likely it is that bitcoin will march on without them, more than 20% of nodes already seem to think so. It takes forever to build trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
Nobody who believes in bitcoin doubts that blocks will be full at some point. But people look very stupid when they say it makes zero difference if that happens one or twenty years from now.
- "It's already legal", yeah, so the core argument is that core devs were wrong for the last decade, and have finally understood filters.
- "anticipate future conditions", indeed, they are doing guesswork and selling it as good engineering, but they have lost my trust. Knots is also doing some guesswork but looks more attractive to me by now
- "Why isn’t it a computer science problem?" Estimating fees needs knowledge of the future, or a risk based prediction, users have to be educated if they want to solve this, they can't rely on a machine. And RBF.
- "Do you see the irony of asking for censorship resistance while arguing for filters?", me not transmitting a message is not censorship, and nobody wants to censor financial transactions
I'm impressed, you can use MS paint, that's adorable. You must be a knots user impersonating a coretard who can't make a coherent argument to make them look bad LOL
Cute, so you pretend I said something I didn't say to make a point, maybe because you have no point LOL
I'm not surprised you don't understand the problem, after all you're a long time bitcoiner and can maintain as many nodes as you like, and spend an unlimited amount of sats for hardware upgrades, and you can't related to people in emerging markets who dream of running a node one day.
Indeed, lots of stupidity, like the idiots who pretend that anybody says that filters solve all problems.
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibreHans 12 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
There's no need to be snarky, I was trying to get us on the same level, but you don't have to if you don't want to.
It seems like you're missing the point. How I personally estimate fees is irrelevant, the point is that it's not a computer science problem and that a computer can't solve it, and that it doesn't matter because of RBF anyway.
The same way I've estimated fees since before the feature existed. And it doesn't matter if it's optimal or not anyway since we got RBF.
"You have to relay spam to have a computer give you economic advice for fees you can replace anyway" - really makes no sense.
Yeah, the usual nonsense.
- "Data can always be disguised as payments", yeah, bitcoin can be abused, so we legalize the abuse
- "Given enough economic demand", it's obviously not given when looking at the current fee market, and which specific demand anyway
- "For performing decentralized fee estimation", fee estimation is not a computer science problem and not something a node can do for users in the first place, and certainly not a reason to relay spam
- "speeding up block propagation for the transactions we expect to be mined", that's the point of filtering spam, to slow down the propagation
- "but accepting that as a censorship-resistant system" - bitcoin is a censor ship resistant monetary system, not file storage or database system