You have a chain split, which defeats the purpose of a single distributed consensus.

You don't solve the byzantine generals problem by adding more generals, especially untruthful ones.

What you want is a change to the consensus rules to remove transactions you don't like. This whole debate is about the standardness rules (which allow p2p unconfirmed tx propagation) which are being relaxed.

Blocking propagation of tx's achieves nothing when the block is mined and your client has to request the tx from the p2p network anyway. Ive taken a very negative view of spam, and non-monetary transactions too. I'm pro-single client (Core), and anti-spam, pro-monetary usage. You can be all these things and anti-censorship.

The problem is that you cannot deterministically determine if something is spam. Its an immutable property of the internet. If spam was easy to detect and filter, we would never see a spam email again. Its not as simple as looking for a 'bad op code'.

The more heavy handed one gets with the filter, the more false positives for monetary transactions, and thus explicit censorship is enabled. There is also the issue that by creating more rules -- which is what Luke is proposing, you end up with more knobs to enforce censorship. And absolutely Luke wants control over what is and isn't allowed to be done.

Its never been about the first order effects -- Its about building capabilities for censorship. Give a censor (like Luke) an inch, and he will take a mile. History has demonstrated this! You have to understand that your true adversary is the spammers, and they are wilful, and will dedicate their pathetic lives to trying to bypass any standardness filters. Such is the internet, and always has been. The more you filter, the harder they fight back, and inflate the UXTO set, increase node resources required etc.

Bitcoin has been striving for to achieve transaction "indistinguishability" with taproot -- for censorship resistance. You cannot have both things. Tx's can be indistinguishable and uncensorable, or distinguishable and censorable.

What has been proposed makes no difference if you run knots. The only "advantage" in running knots is that you want to support a fork chain if and when it happens. Knots is already blocking propagation of monetary transactions in the form of lightning force closes. Lets not make it worse by running broken clients.

If you want to change the consensus rules, that is fine -- Its looking more like Luke's consensus changes to his minority fork client will proceed, and you can enjoy his fork chain, and leave the people who understand whats actually happening in peace.

You might want to refresh your memory on what happened last time a vocal community member and minority-client community thought Bitcoin was going in the wrong direction.

I wish you would direct your anger at the vandals, not at the janitors.

It is not good to have multiple clients.

"I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." --SN, 2010

Bitcoin Core, the satoshi client, is fine.

Time won’t tell. No miner is that stupid when money is on the line.

Stop listening to this nonsense. Core is not malicious. These fears are being whipped up by a non-technical group of Johnny come lately folks who do not know history, or the risk in delegating trust to one man.

Knots is broken, and will filter out essential LN txs. Don't run Knots with LND, you are only going to have pain.

You’re arguing in bad faith and trying to make it a religious thing. I won’t argue anything along the road you are trying to lead.

It’s about a crazy man doing crazy things. Not about religion.

You are misstating the argument. It’s about individual behaviors, not genetics or lineage or even religion.

Luke has a decade and more of unacceptable behavior in this and other projects. Calling into question his ability to lead a project is absolutely valid. It’s not even about nitpicking some IRC comment, it’s year after year of poisonous actions. Even this whole affair is poison that Bitcoin did not need.

Everything you have said is ass backward friend. If you believe a single word of this, please rethink where you are getting your information. I’ve been around a long time, and can tell you that you are listening to the wrong people.

Re Knots, Please be warned that Knots will fork off the network one day. Then Luke’s followers can enjoy his “no hookers and no blackjack” “bitcoin” minority fork. It will be like bcash again, airdrop for everyone!

He’s been trying to take control of things for a decade+, and now, thanks to useful idiots, actually has a decent amount of suckers running his minority fork software. Be careful who you listen to.

Is it tho?

Conways law states that organizations design systems based on their communication, that is we write software the way we behave and communicate with each other. It’s all fractal reflections of invisible structures, each subsystem is similar the more you zoom in.

It is not absurd to state that a contentious, frequently half-truth spouting and authoritarian leader would write software that is contentious, non-truthful and authoritarian.

They both do fiat, shitcoins and bitcoin.

Xfce4eva

I think the miners get a slightly free pass here. I think Knut mostly means the folks generating spam. Signing the txs, not necessary the ones bundling them. Including valid transactions is the role of the miner, not to make value judgements of its need, beyond consensus validity.

We all consent to taking others transactions, because that means our transactions are more likely to be included (censorship resistance). When the equilibrium is upset by assholes who try to ruin it, dissonance increases in the consensus.

Including spam tx’s in blocks is inventively aligned, Infact it reassigns sats to miners in the form of fees paid by parties with malicious spamming intent.

In lightning? It simply exists in 2 places, the sender and receiver. It is not socializing the cost of the spam to the rest of the nodes.

I don’t think you can call satograms spam, it’s another class on its own.

No, because ultimately it’s a social problem, not a technical one. They have made valid transactions, that doesn’t mean anything. Vandals walk in the park like anyone else.

Adding filters just further promotes censorship and centralization. Of course, it is a tragedy of the commons; and rather than policing behavior via authority, we must do promote good behavior by incentives.

I agree with Knut. Spamming the Bitcoin blockchain is the most uncool thing you can do, analogous to vandalism of the public spaces.

Why would we listen to anyone who behaves in this way, their actions have shown they are treacherous.

Hey as long as the amount of coins is transferring from exchanges and weak hands to the strong hands, I don’t care who owns em. ETF, MSTR, Uncle Jim, your momma, doesn’t matter.

One can critique MSTR as an instrument, but as long as they are not increasing the coins in circulation, both the die hard cypherpunk hodler and Wall Street have aligned interests.

No, Strategy is buying real Bitcoin. It’s reducing the float on exchanges.

They are selling IOUs, or not even that. They sell paper, which they use to buy real Bitcoin. The problem is not that they are buying Bitcoin…. We want entities to buy Bitcoin…

I also enjoy reading Arthur’s take. He has great visibility from his experience, and I appreciate his irreverent writing style.

There will be many stablecoins, issued by banks, buying treasuries forever. Trillions coming. Eurodollar, gone. Dollar Cash in South America? Gone for stablecoins on everyone’s phone.

“Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." - sn

Lost stablecoin would not be a gift to every other holder, rather straight into the pocket of the issuer as collateral and treasury yield, forever.

Many on the planet are going to end up with some dollar-based token. Most likely on several popular blockchains, none of them Bitcoin.

We have to understand the ramifications of this, and fiat exchange for Bitcoin.

You are welcome to run bcash or knots or whatever alternative client you like.

Don't complain to us when it breaks.

“More babies are dying in countries around the world because they have less economic freedom” https://odysee.com/@HardcoreCrypto:f/babies-are-dying-because-of-bitcoin:c (Not my video, just found through search).

Wow, how things never change. Knots drama is Bcash all over again.