pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 19h \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
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
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611
Bitcoin Core, the satoshi client, is fine.
man satoshi said that but is it really true?
what terrible thing happens if nosea aren't in lockstep? the only thing I can think of is stale blocks (fork risk) and fees become hard to estimate. am I missing anything?
reply
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.
reply
If you say there is no such thing as spam, only consensus valid or not, then you're a liar.
We don't need more generals, we just need to get rid of some of the ones in core.
reply
The irony is that they are using this quote as support for the idea that monetary transactions will outbid spam.
Which is it defer to expertise or the word of Satoshi?
Spam exists or it doesn't?
If spam is defined as the consensus layer then we can just change consensus to service more markets for distributed data storage, everybody wins!
But the reality is that bitcoin gets it's value from the fact that it is so hard to use it for anything other than money.
If you can just outbid the moneyness at the level of block space then bitcoin is nothing but a proof of stake shitcoin, where the people who control the chain are the people who pay the miners the most. But there is no reason to believe that those people would be people using bitcoin as money.
CoreCoin is just a "trust me bro" scam.
reply
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.
I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.
The problem here is that Core developers are actively stating that there is no such thing as spam, validity is the only criteria, which is a complete and explicit shift away from Satoshi's and the community's intention and understanding for 15 years.
Core developers are breaking the social contract, leading inevitably to the menace of multiple implementations.
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc.
Nowhere here does he include jpegs, runes, or short videos. He could have, but he didn't.
The problem is that Core developers and their advocates here are lying about the distinction between monetary and non-monetary transactions, because we have been infected by shitcoiners whose own projects failed in the shitcoin distributed database market.
And Core is playing brinkmanship, extorting the community. Anyone who cannot distinguish spam from monetary transactions should in good conscience walk away from the repo until other developers step up, let it sit, let it go through a dormant period, until the dust settles on this.
By forcing the idea that bitcoin is just a distributed database they are creating the scenario where people invested in a monetary network have to fight to protect their investment.
Fees on their own simply won't outcompete spam on fees, not when lightning and other means of transacting bitcoin exist on L2. When there is a scarce resource (block space) people will create all kinds of competitions to exhaust that resource, as a sort of prize, a sorting mechanism.
reply
I wish you would direct your anger at the vandals, not at the janitors.
reply
But the janitors are saying there is no such thing as litter!!!
To be clear, this was a statement from a younger core developer on a recent podcast who seems to have been one of the instigators of this ridiculous debate.
Wuille and Maxwell wouldn't have said there is no such thing as spam just because it cannot be defined deterministically.
The softer position of the spam-apologists is that it exists but will be tamed by fees, which is not a position based upon evidence given the amount of capital invested in shitcoins to date, and the intense historical pressure there has been for bitcoin to support spam as a serviceable market rather than maintaining hostility.
The distributed database on a Blockchain shitcoins only exist because bitcoin is hostile to them.
To hear so many so-called Bitcoiners, who want to be on the winning team but also the winning team has to do what they want, which always fails, to destroy the distinction between monetary and non-monetary transactions and just let the market sort it out.
Satoshi said "There are other things we can do if necessary"
But now Core Devs want to use that same quote out of context to suggest that there was never ever a plan to do anything other than let fees sort it out.
Bullshit!!!
Any Core developer or so-called Bitcoiner who denies the distinction monetary and non-monetary transactions, and therefore the existence of spam as a concept, should fork off, bow out, they are not Bitcoiners. Not because I said so, but because they don't understand bitcoin or want to change what it is against the will of everyone who has invested the 1000 hours to understand and invest in it, technically, financially, intellectually, reputationally, or in any other way.
reply
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.
reply
No, I don't. That's a binary position in a world that is full of grey. You want things to be black and white but that's just your limitation speaking, or your dishonesty. Whichever it is it's bullshit.
The fact is that non-monetary transactions are spam, a certain amount of which is tolerable. Sometimes we don't call tolerable spam spam because we know that it cannot be deterministically defined and we don't want to waste time, we pick our battles against spam.
Nobody ever said it's "as simple as picking a bad op-code". But some core developers are not saying that spam is not possible to define deterministically, they are saying that it doesn't exist. And the developers who admit that spam exists are still siding with the spammers, doing their propaganda for them.
You are just giving up the war, or joining the other side.
reply