pull down to refresh
@anon
stacking since: #223678
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 15 Sep \ parent \ on: Can I run Bitcoin Core 30 in mode 29? bitcoin
So that would be 83:
from https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/127895/implications-of-op-return-changes-in-upcoming-bitcoin-core-version-30-0/127903#127903
Thanks, that makes sense. So running Bitcoin Core 30 with -datacarriersize=80 in the config makes it behave like 29.
I’ve been thinking about exactly this a LOT lately, and this post is the push I needed. Let’s see if it works or when the opportunity presents itself I piss my pants and follow the crowd.
If some people can at least read, process and fully grasp one paragraph, I wish it would be the below. Then I think we wouldn't be having such a religious debate:
The reason it [attempting to address data spam at the relay level] is harmful for the ecosystem at large is mining centralization. Given enough demand for transactions that the network of nodes shuns (for whatever reason), large miners are incentivized to develop means for users and companies to submit these shunned transactions directly to them (this is already happening to some extent). If these "out-of-band translation relay rails" end up becoming economically relevant enough (through the out-of-band fees they involve) that miners not using them become uncompetitive, the ecosystem has a huge problem, far bigger than some temporary JPEG hype drivel: the inability for new small miners to enter the ecosystem (because who would bother sending transactions to a tiny miner), especially anonymously (the best protection the ecosystem has long term against miner censorship). In addition, it incentives the development of one or a few centralized "payment submission network" companies that all big transaction creators and miners contract with (something we've seen in other blockchains), imposing a large censorship risk on this company, and making the entire goal of decentralization a shim of what it was supposed to be.
In other words, the future of the Bitcoin (computer) network as we know it is at stake here.
One argument I don't hear from the Knots crowd is that running knots is simply easier on your hardware. A lot of people don't use their node for fee estimation, and it seems that's what you lose by having a drastically different mempool than most miners.
Introduction of the paper is typical shitcoiner mostly unfounded criticism of LN.
-
ZKP is a potential solution to solve many things…
-
Rollups have more capital locked that lightning (why should we care, if a one sats lightning capa was enough to handle all the transactions happening that would be great)
-
LN has only 160m USD (number completly false and orders of magnitude smaller than what is actually « locked » into it) but is also capital inefficient. Well it seems that 160 m is enough right now to scale Bitcoin so shouldn’t you be happy ?
This intro starts badly lol.
That would be surprising that a guy with such a way of seeing LN, let’s say with a bit of dishonesty, has taken time to think about and actually help scaling Bitcoin.
Hope I’ll be wrong and that his idea it leads to improvement in Bitcoin L2, but this smells not good at first sight.
Do you have any concrete numbers to back up this statement?
"Nuclear is a promising long term piece of the puzzle [but] that’s to say nothing of my skepticism of it competing on price."
I'm not a expert in energy production, but given the difference in energy density of production between solar and nuclear, with nuclear being much higher. I would be much less skeptical of this idea if there was at least some ballpark numbers to show how solar is superior to nuclear or other forms of energy.
Doomberg recently has a post covering solar and it's costs and challenges that seems relevant to your idea:
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/fessing-up?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I'm not a hater, and am genuinely curious about the possibility of this being feasible.
I also really enjoy your thoughts on the PBJ podcast, thanks for all the insightful content every week.
I’m not saying what to do or not do, but I know extremely high powered lasers exist and if u shine them at things then things don’t like that
Idk if it’d give u the satisfaction you’re looking for, but it could give the results!
Is there a corrolary to what you describe here?
Slower block propagation benefits larger mining pools by increasing the number of stale blocks and delaying other miners in switching to the new chaintip. Bigger miners disproportionally win over competing blocks and the block author doesn’t suffer from the propagation delay when a block is found.
For instance, if network is dominated (90%) by strict policy around spam. Do small miners/pool only including standard tx be able to propagate their block faster than the big pool mining non-standard OP_RETURN? In that sense, do we have a reduction in stale blocks for these small pools? On the other side, the big pools mining non-standard tx would also receive those standard blocks as fast as the other.
Can we say that the big pool could face the issue of getting orphaned blocks in the situation where a pool mines a block with only standard transaction propagating faster than their slower non-standard block?
If filters do not work at making it more expensive and making the lives of spammer more difficult. Why the very dev that wants spam post this article explaining why they work at making spammers endeavor costly and difficult? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-bitcoin-mempool-relay-network-dynamics
Other misconception: node should follow miners' relaxed node policy. Nodes are counter power to miners. If the network filter policy is stricter, mining spam would lead to slower block propagation. Thus probability of getting orphaned by an honest miner propagating faster.
Strict filters forces pool to mine honest tx and follow what policies the majority of the network enforces.
It's all relative. Globally, adoption has a long ways to go, but yes, of the countries who play in Bitcoin, they are allegedly higher on the list. I know there are at least some Bitcoin meetups in HCMC.
Even if there are few, I'm curious of the reaction.
Maybe I should be more curious of whoever was allegedly hoarding gold. Are they going to become more interested in something that's harder to confiscate?