pull down to refresh
1143 sats \ 33 replies \ @LibreHans 5h \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
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
reply
Argument from authority
reply
reply
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.
reply
reply
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.
reply
reply
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.
deleted by author
yeah, bitcoin can be abused, so we legalize the abuse
policy is poorly compared to legality. If you want to make "the trade" illegal, you need to make such transactions invalid. Changing policy is akin to saying "we don't want people to do this, but we will still accept it when it's in a block"
This is what I don't get about what I believe is your argument: Bitcoin is a permissionless network. Run any code you like. Why do you care so much what Core changes when it comes to policy? Just run Knots. Problem solved as far as you are concerned.
reply
this debate reminds me of those stupid times from plandemic, so a better way to explain is with a meme 😂😂😂
Just run Knots. Problem solved as far as you are concerned.
just wear your mask, what's your problem if I do not wear it?
reply
Indeed, lots of stupidity, like the idiots who pretend that anybody says that filters solve all problems.
reply
reply
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.
reply
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.
so my meme is true: if I do not run Knots I am killing people in "emergent markets" now LOL
reply
“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.
reply
Cute, so you pretend I said something I didn't say to make a point, maybe because you have no point LOL
reply
reply
To be clear, Bitcoin Core v30 lets node runners configure the OP_RETURN size limit (the -datacarriersize config option). The only change is that its default value is increased (to effectively unlimited). It is marked deprecated, which means the option is expected to be removed in a future version, but given the current political dispute around it, I do not expect that will happen any time soon.
reply
In law there is a concept of malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Malum prohibitum is the policy layer, where nodes regulate the network, malum in se (bad in itself) is the layer of strict validity.
Because of the basics facts about information theory it's impossible to deterministically ban spam at the validity layer, you have to do it based upon rough consensus at the policy layer, which is how it's been since Satoshi.
Its just an engineers autism that leads people to believe that if things are not deterministic then they are not valid. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
“ yeah, bitcoin can be abused, so we legalize the abuse”.
It’s already “legal” in this analogy.
“ it's obviously not given when looking at the current fee market, and which specific demand anyway”
Current is not future. Things can change quickly. Good engineering needs to anticipate future conditions.
“ 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”
Why isn’t it a computer science problem?. Many many new cryptoeconomic and distributed computer science concepts are being invented from Satoshis discovery. Calculation of optimal fees in a decentralized mempools in distributed ledgers is absolutely an emerging computer science problem, and will be studied in academic contexts for years to come.
“ that's the point of filtering spam, to slow down the propagation”.
But it doesn’t. It’s in the block. I would encourage you to learn more about how clients handle the peer to peer traffic for tx and block propagation. It’s not as simple as an ultimately non controversial single client-side flag.
“bitcoin is a censor ship resistant monetary system, not file storage or database system”.
I agree with you here, however the way to achieve this is through economic incentives, not through arbitrary filters.
Do you see the irony of asking for censorship resistance while arguing for filters?
reply
- "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
reply
You are welcome to run bcash or knots or whatever alternative client you like.
Don't complain to us when it breaks.
reply
RIP bitcoin
reply