pull down to refresh

Maybe Core is Captured? What is the difference between 'data' and 1s & 0s?
1137 sats \ 5 comments \ @028559d218 19h bitcoin
An anon posted this question here #1079203 and I'm going to answer it as best I can with the explanations I've seen regarding the current situation.
The Anon writes
Maybe core is captured. Why the are they trying to make shitcoining easy on bitcoin. The pr that kicked this off was specific to a shitcoin problem not a node problem.
Instead of posting a long response there... I thought it made more sense to include the post here... with regards to my understanding of the current situation overall?
If I don't understand it correctly... what am I missing? What more would "running Knots" probably accomplish?
If a bunch of people get together and 'run knots' does it keep the spam out of blocks? No. it just makes fee estimation harder... Which means that individual mempools are less accurate, less complete, and block propagation slower and less efficient (for compact blocks) across mempools.
What even 'is' a shitcoin? Imagine that an infinite number of token 'protocols' can exist in op_return data... literally 'anything' can arbitrarily "be" a token if someone 'pretends' that way.
Any number, any letter, any 'symbol' can 'represent' a token to degens... if that combination of data "appears" in a transaction. People can "imagine" they "own" that data and manipulate it by... creating more transactions. Literally ANY combination of symbols can indicate creating, moving, or manipulating something of value... if someome wants to "pretend" that way.
That's why Spam is literally an attack on blockspace, it's a DoS attack on the SPACE of blockspace itself
For example the outputs:
  • 00000001
  • 00000010
  • 00000100
  • 00001000
  • 00010000 could be the number of satoshis in output UTXOs...
But what does this actually consist of? 1s and 0s.
And what ARE 1s and 0s? Data.
That's why some people say that "bitcoin is data" even though that saying pisses people off...
And so the only thing ultimately stopping a Denial of Service attack (which is what SPAM is) is consensus, the blocksize and fees.
What drives up fees? Legitimate users. And how do users pay those fees? In Bitcoin....
You mine Bitcoin with energy.
And the something of value across all regions and dimensions... the great 'equalizer' of effort is energy.
It's therefore the FILTER across blockspace.
But only if people actually USE Bitcoin to transact.
The more Bitcoin is used peer to peer to transact the more expensive a DoS attack becomes because the stronger the fee market.
#1077925
Incidentally, the more expensive censorship becomes as well.
That's a little more nuanced than saying "Core loves spam" but it is reflected in what's going on on-chain. Tell me... what's to keep a government from paying miners to mine absolute bull**** transactions including arbitrary data/inputs/outputs over and over?
Nothing. Except fees and fee pressure from users short of some kind of fork/change in consensus.
THAT'S why developers/CORE/others are so skeptical of filters.
It's not that that they "don't work" it's that they "don't work well" and in the future the most censorship-resistant network is one governed by fees with a VERY limited blockspace available to the entire world.
This video from Pleb Underground explains that perspective... better than I ever could
https://www.youtube.com/live/KknCC22NBVo?si=nL_ydy-4DZZDUpFF
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @unboiled 15h
THAT'S why developers/CORE/others are so skeptical of filters.
That's fine and all, but the bad look comes from core removing the option for a node runner to even set that for themselves. They just don't care about what many node runners want. And if those are switching to get that option back, they can't pull a surprised pikachu face. (Though I doubt they are.)
It also feels like a storm in a tea cup to me. Claims of core being captured seem way overblown and too sensationalist for me to take them seriously without hard proof. Are they acting elitist? Maybe. Let them. If that bothers you, run knots. Just beware of not letting your ego alone dictate your choice.
Meanwhile, little has changed. If a node runner wants to block stuff from their mempool, they can. If a spammer wants to include stuff, they can. Either option got a bit easier. Fee estimation is still hard. Big woop.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 8h
Fee estimation is still hard. Big woop.
Accurate fee estimation is incredibly important across mempools. "Fragmenting the mempool" as it's called is incredibly bad and should be avoided.
Ya sure you can always look at mempool.space or whatever to do your fee estimation for a transaction... but that's exactly the point. Mempool.space shows everything it holds back nothing and if your own mempool isn't showing you the transactions you're competing with... this damages the network.
In general but especially when it comes to things like Lightning. Being able to open Lightning channels and know what the fees are in a timely manner is extremely healthy for Bitcoin.
As far as removing the slider in future versions of core... I agree with you. However, from a design perspective it may be better that users just run their node at default settings and then actually go and use it. Using the node is the key thing...
A knots node rarely used does way less good for the network, than a "stock settings" node that's heavily used to broadcast and relay transactions. With accurate fee estimation.
Just playing the devil's advocate
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @BallLightning 17h
Yeah, i would advice people to USE bitcoin and RUN bitcoin knots.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SwapMarket 9h
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, per the whitepaper title. UTXO amounts are the coins of this cash system. Any other "tokens" or "data" are parasitic spam.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 8h
Tokens and shitcoins on Bitcoin don't exist. How could they? The only "cash" on the Bitcoin network is Bitcoin.
Hypothetically someone could "pretend" that an op_return output "ABC" is a new "token". And to "create" the token more op_returns need to appear with the words "mint" and "ABC" juxtaposed.
Degens show up and now there are thousands of transactions with that exact op_return - "mint ABC" flooding the network.
Were any tokens created? No. Were those 'tokens' stored on Bitcoin? No. Where are those tokens? On some external database. Was this an innovation? No.
Now another set of degens show up and create a "new token" called the "DEF" token by including that symbol in op_returns next to the word "mint"...
"Mint DEF" appears by the thousands and thousands... after which an external database 'records' that the token was 'minted' by the thousands. Certain outputs are then traded to "speculate" on the value of that token... and sketchy Chinese exchanges "track" the movement of that token to "pretend" that people can trade dust outputs... and the degens show up flooding the network with dust/arbitrary transactions to pretend they are 'creating tokens'.
Was a "token" really added to Bitcoin? No. Created on Bitcoin? No. All the degens did was add arbitrary data and "pretend" they were creating something new...
As a matter of fact that's all that "runes" are. Arbitrary data.
And the consequnce? 10s of thousands of dust/spam-like transactions to simulate the 'movement of tokens' across the network even though there are no "tokens" on Bitcoin. The side effect is higher fees on the network, and also a growing UTXO set as degens pay the dust outputs.
reply