Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns protos.com/bitcoin-devs-cheer-block-reconstruction-stats-ignore-security-budget-concerns/

500 sats \ 46 comments \ @0xbitcoiner 18 Sep bitcoin

This morning, Bitcoin Core developers celebrated improved block reconstruction statistics for node operators while conveniently ignoring the reason for these statistics — the downward trend in fees for Bitcoin’s security budget.

Reacting with heart emojis and thumbs up to a green chart (@0xB10C) showing over 80% “successful compact block reconstructions without any requested transactions,” they conveniently omitted red trend lines of the fees that Bitcoin users pay for mining security which powered those green statistics.

Block reconstructions occur when a node requests additional information about transactions within a compact block.

Although compact blocks allow nodes to quickly relay valid bundles of transactions across the internet, the more frequently that nodes can reconstruct without extra, cumbersome transaction requests from their peers is a positive trend.

...read more at protos.com

view all related items

340 sats \ 44 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the cheering around technical achievements and the economic reality that surrounds it, yes.

But if I look at both the comments and the article, then there's also a disconnect there: if you want quick block reconstruction by already knowing all the txs in the block beforehand, then it is useful to know... all the txs that are mined in the block, beforehand.

This is why not tracking transactions that you could know of is self-defeating. Whereas not mining transactions you consider undesired, is only unwise from a profit-maximalist perspective.

Technically, you can create any rules you desire for inclusion in your block templates without unnecessarily limiting your mempool's contents. All it takes is taking a step back and realize that you can be spam hating and censorship hating at the same time. This is the challenge to all that seem to be polarizing themselves over something as retarded as BRC-20.

0 sats \ 41 replies \ @sudonaka 18 Sep

The core dev team is too centralized

Paychecks from same company

Work in same office

We need knots and a third major client implementation too

273 sats \ 16 replies \ @TheCharlatan 18 Sep

In my perception Bitcoin Core is the most decentralized it has ever been since the Gavin days.

202 sats \ 15 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

I don't think that it matters, because the problem isn't actual decentralization, but an accusation of conspiracy. And that's impossible to defend against. All you can do is not be trapped into reacting to it in any way ¹

But I don't think that the "3rd fork" idea that has recently been re-popularized (e.g. #1223880) is such a bad idea; it can help lift some of the pressure and spotlight off of current Bitcoin Core contributors.

I have personally been in that situation - more than once - and I know very well that it truly sucks to have to let the punches land and not hit back in any way. It's also why I am an anon on SN and won't hesitate for a moment to burn and move on if I have to; I don't want to have to deal with that shit ever again on any other project than past ones I still, some days grudgingly, contribute to. ↩

200 sats \ 2 replies \ @leaf 23h

I don't think that it matters, because the problem isn't actual decentralization, but an accusation of conspiracy. And that's impossible to defend against

The impression I'm starting to get is that many bitcoiners got into it precisely because they're conspiratorially minded, not because of sound evaluation.

You can see this bias towards conspiracy across bitcoiners in big and small ways. Obviously you have Kratter's ranting about chem trails and mental telepathy, but it's evident in smaller ways such as people's reaction to the Kirk assassination.

I am a little conspiratorially minded myself. And there can be advantages to it. But it is a tendency that I recognise in myself and temper with various strategies.

It seems some percentage of bitcoiners don't have this self reflection or the ability to understand the technical big picture.

I imagine eventually this weakness will be exploited and they'll sell their coins cheaply - similar to how the bcashers lost their stacks.

125 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 18h

The impression I'm starting to get is that many bitcoiners got into it precisely because they're conspiratorially minded, not because of sound evaluation.

It's always been a significant subset that perhaps I too am part of myself (though I'd totes stroke ego and add: mildly), and we've seen high agency people (nearly/completely) lose it over the years as further evidence to this.

I imagine eventually this weakness will be exploited

The red-teamer in me says it's extremely likely that it already is being exploited under the radar, and the theorist-red-teamer in me says that this entire drama is an exploit.

I'll probably come back to this later because lots to unpack, but I have a coding gig delivery to do today

125 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 18h

The impression I'm starting to get is that many bitcoiners got into it precisely because they're conspiratorially minded, not because of sound evaluation.

this so much, see #1016014

100 sats \ 9 replies \ @TheCharlatan 18 Sep

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I am in favour of a future where different clients are in a mad max like standoff, constantly trying to out compete each other, optimising for different use cases and targetting different audiences. It's great to see people seriously thinking about this.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

Yes! That would also be healthier than just all the pressure being on one repo.

50 sats \ 7 replies \ @sudonaka 18 Sep

The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?

What are they responsible for in that time from the user’s perspective?
Inscriptions, forcing filter changes and now a 20% rebellion from the repo?

What is the track record that ya’ll are so eager to defend?

321 sats \ 1 reply \ @leaf 22h

The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?

Of those that have significantly contributed, they've mostly been around far longer than that.

What are they responsible for in that time from the user’s perspective?

It is very sad to me how the people who have fought tooth and nail to make bitcoin sound money, and who continue to do so, have people like you casually throwing around nonsense.

Your idea of what's going on amongst bitcoin devs is completely at odds with reality. That's what happens when you make pronouncements based something you read on social media. And then the devs waste their time refuting people like you one by one instead of actually improving bitcoin.

If you want to know who is attacking bitcoin, it's useful idiots like yourself. You've been successfully weaponised into an attack against bitcoin devs' reputation.

view all 1 replies

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheCharlatan 23h

The current core devs have only been there since about 2021 correct?

No, many from the the 2011-2013 era still remain and are among the most active contributors. glozow is the newest contributor among the maintainers, but the rest have been working on core about a decade plus now and have seen through major changes to core in that time period. There has not been a big generational shift, it is a very gradual process.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

Here is where you can see maintainers of Core.

view all 3 replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 18 Sep

How is an “accusation of conspiracy” a problem if it isn’t true?

Are you saying it’s a problem that all users in Bitcoin don’t agree about policy?

1200 sats \ 0 replies \ @leaf 22h

How is an “accusation of conspiracy” a problem if it isn’t true?

It's a problem because it makes being a bitcoin dev a horrible experience. If you want to improve bitcoin, you also have to accept death threats and people constantly trying to trash your reputation. This leads to less devs, less improvements to bitcoin, and means the chance that bitcoin achieves its full potential is reduced.

But hey, maybe we just let bitcoin stay as it is, it can enrich the Saylors of the world, and fuck the unbanked.

165 sats \ 13 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

Yes, it would be good to have a great, conservative implementation. Maybe libbitcoin can be that, maybe another fork of Core...

but that has literally nothing to do with what I just said.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @kepford 18 Sep

You know what else! Water is wet! That's important too!

66 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

Well yes but that's annoying, especially when it rains and you just wanted to read the newspaper on a bench in the park.

So maybe, we can filter out the wetness from the water and make it dry. That would be much better.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 18 Sep

If we don't filter out wetness I say rain is dead. Its game over. Wrap it up boys

43 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 18 Sep

Thinking of it, yes. I'm convinced that this is urgent and if we do nothing right away then before you know it people will abuse this wetness to flood homes.

#hardforkphysics

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 18 Sep

Dude, I already have a fix for this. Join my alternate dimension where we pretend that we should try to fix physics and ignore umbels and roofs.

view all 2 replies

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 23h

What good are other implementations (that are consensus valid-identical) if all they change is relay policy???

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 19h

I didn't say only change relay policy.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 11h

That's what Knots does though. And is what 'all the drama' is about

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 11h

That's not true either, it changes some other things too, like for example the decision making process of what gets merged; Bitcoin Core doesn't have a lead anymore. Knots does and the lead has ultimate power; aka BDFL structure. It's about the only thing changed in the Knots contribution guidelines that were forked from Core: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/commit/7d8e16ec7830b00272d18f453711e5f7f229127d

What all the drama is about is people who literally have no clue what the fuck they are talking about forming an echo chamber. The Knots echo chamber is infinitely worse in terms of absolute ignorance than the Core echo chamber (though much less powerful, so I guess they're equally horrendous.)

But, all this doesn't matter. If you don't like it, write your own node software. Or write your own patchset. Removing the word DEPRECATED from a command line option's help text is hardly worth a patch, but, bringing the option back if it gets removed early might be - though if sipa publicly states that it is unlikely to be removed in the face of controversy, then I expect there to be great restraint on removing it. Time will tell though.

I'm not convinced that many people in this shitshow have developed the skills to verify, and actively use those skills in reviewing at the very least release notes and source code linked there. This is probably where they'll have to start, so that they don't have to be gaslit by some clickbaiter on X or YT, but actually know what is going on.

Because don't trust, verify doesn't mean read more X posts or watch more youtube. It means read code, and change it if you don't like the code (as long as it's not consensus code.)

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 11h

Thanks for your comment. You don't need to tell me... I have written post after post about, to the best of my knowledge and ability, about why Knots doesn't make any sense.

I don't know what the 'run knots' crowd is going to do after v30 is released (and their nodes download and verify blocks) or after knots were to become a larger percentage of the network... and the same transactions make it into blocks.

Hard fork?

They seem to think that at 51% 'knots' something magical happens which doesn't make any sense.

What all the drama is about is people who literally have no clue what the fuck they are talking about forming an echo chamber. The Knots echo chamber is infinitely worse in terms of absolute ignorance than the Core echo chamber (though much less powerful, so I guess they're equally horrendous.)

I used to run different relay filters, op_return sizes etc as Umbrel makes it really easy to change but honestly it just feels so pointless. The 'run knots' people would be much better off using Bitcoin regularly and frequently than spinning up more nodes which... from what I can tell they never/rarely use. Talk is cheap.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @028559d218 23h

Don't we have other implementations? Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision Litecoin, Dogecoin etc etc

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 19h

No. They're not the same.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @028559d218 11h

Obviously. I don't understand then why people say 'we need other implementations'

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 10h

I said it. You don't have to ask "people", you can ask me.

What I'm saying is that I think that Bitcoin needs at least one other fully validating, mining and wallet capable implementation of the Bitcoin Protocol per current consensus rules. I will be of that opinion unless the repository bitcoin/bitcoin recovers from its current transition towards being a "place of work" from previously being "the staging area for the reference implementation".

I don't say this lightly because I have great respect for the people that have contributed there, and I have closely followed the work (as in line-by-line often) of many of them, some for over a decade. But the problem is that these people also included some that are now treated as undesirable, and even though I don't agree with much of what many of them say or do, I still think that moderating those people out (or calling them trolls, even if they call you worse names) is not something you'd do on the staging area, or outside of it, if you're the steward of that.

Inherently, Bitcoin Core downgrades from being the reference implementation to being an implementation. And although that sounds like semantics, the difference is huge from a protocol development point of view. In lieu of a full consensus spec, there needs to be a reference implementation, and this needs to be free of politics. It needs to be much more about the code and less about the people. And honestly, I've felt it used to be that way ever since Gavin's exit. But it's changing in the wrong direction and that sucks, even though I understand the motivation (see earlier discussion with Murch #966323.)

So if that development doesn't correct, there's imho a need for a repository that can host both Core and Knots devs and that can function as a place where the protocol is staged, for everyone; even the retards, trolls, elitists and sociopaths.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 10h

So if that development doesn't correct, there imho a need for a repository that can host both Core and Knots devs and that can function as a place where the protocol is staged, for everyone; even the retards, trolls, elitists and sociopaths.

Knots people (and by that I mean people who think "knots is the answer") by their own voices cannot co-exist with core.

The way to approach this I've seen echoed elsewhere is 'run what you want' 'your software your node etc'... and Knots users want total domination of who runs what.

I was in a 'monetary maximalist' group a few years ago with some people I agreed with, some I disagreed with. When the arguments about 'arbitrary data' were just getting going in 2023... I spoke my mind, because Bitcoin is supposed to be a free speech zone, right?

Well the group kicked me out. They couldn't articulate their views effectively. They couldn't answer my basic questions. They resorted to 'namecalling' and personal attacks... as if that would somehow do something. And when I asked them about it, asked them about their 'solutions' to the spam issue?

They kicked me out calling me a 'spy' or 'someone who hates Bitcoin' who 'attacks' it which is ridiculous.

They could not answer my questions and my questioning (beyond namecalling of certain runes/ordinals developers) got me kicked out quite quickly.

All of this energy isn't being channeled constructively and eventually there will be a fork into 'bitcoin pure' or 'bitcoin knots' by people who cannot make technical arguments or are persuaded by influencers.

I think Core is doing the right thing, and the vast majority of the loudest voices cannot articulate what they want. 'Knots voices' don't really accept that.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 9h

Yeah I know you've been panicking about that fork for over a month now. Honestly, a fork is a better outcome than the status quo. But you know too that there is no majority of developers, hashpower, or coins backing such a fork. So they'll be doomed the moment everyone got their freshly forked coins out.

The best outcome is averting a fork and ending the drama. I laid out above how that could be done, with 2 alternatives.

view all 4 replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 23h

Keep in mind... that BRC20s don't exist. It's like the tooth fairy. It's a made up thing from a few random lines of code that gets 'indexed' somewhere so... people can 'pretend' that tokens don't exist.

It's impossible to 100% stop these meta-protocols.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 19h

Denial isn't a good strategy, imho.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 18 Sep

https://xcancel.com/glozow/status/1968310311221657809

Footnotes