pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @fourrules 15h \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
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.
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.
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. You're mischaracterising my position. I know some core developers don't believe spam exists, so they are the enemy, because that's insane. Just because something cannot be defined deterministically doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean it cannot be fought.
reply