pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @LibreHans 29 Sep \ parent \ on: Calle On Core/Knots bitcoin
Sorry, but it's absurd to pretend that people would resist a bugfix. The only people who would want to keep the inscription bug are the people who exploit it, and some fools who believe that we need to shovel additional funds to mining operations.
People also keep repeating that a minority relaying transactions would guarantee they are mined, but it's something that core devs have contradicted for the last decade, they used to say that the risk of slow propagation incentivizes miners to produce blocks that a majority of nodes relay.
Op_return being 4x as expensive means there are zero incentives to use it.
Op_return being 4x as expensive means there are zero incentives to use it.
Witness data can't be attached to outputs, whereas op_returns can only be attached to outputs. In order to (indirectly) attach witness data to an output, you need a second transaction which spends that output and then you attach the witness data of the input in the second transaction.
Therefore, usually people need two transactions in order to put arbitrary data into the witness data.
In some use cases, they can't use two transactions. They have only one transaction, and they are determined to attach data to the outputs. They therefore have just two choices: op_return or unspendable-utxos. The latter is terrible in the long run, as it bloats the UTXO set. If high fees are failing to discourage the use of unspendable utxos, then we have to be realistic about our options.
reply
Unspendable outputs are actually a good example of a working relay policy, as massive data storage only started when the taproot bug was discovered, which lowered cost and slipped by policy.
reply
"unspendable outputs" are absolutely to be avoided.
All technical actors and advisors on both sides agree that unspendable outputs increase the UTXO set unnecessarily and are to be avoided.
Numerous propositions and positions on both sides of the discussion want to address unspendable outputs... saying they are "a good example of a working relay policy..."
Is exactly the opposite of the truth, sorry.
reply
Trying to 'fix the bug now'... would only result in harming users fee estimation.
There is zero chance today, now, of getting the 95% of the network onboard with 'inscriptions-censoring' or such a change in relay policy that op_if op_end (I don't remember the exact usage) doesn't get relayed.
The inscriptions people would just... spool up their own nodes with the 'current' relay policies... their nodes would relay to each other and the users with a different 'relay policy' would only be harming themselves.
"Fixing the bug" today would do a great deal of damage to the network, and it is highly unlikely to reach the 95% relay threshold (if that's even enough).
In addition it's obvious that 99% of the inscriptions have stopped, and those that haven't are <1 sat/vbyte so easily outbid.
This is a non or small-issue today imo focusing on it to the exclusion of the MoE debate is a huge distraction.
reply
Fee estimation again... fee estimation is a terrible feature and only leads to users not learning how to manage fees properly, and about RBF.
And the main network "damage" is that spam miners risk that their blocks propagate slower, that's a feature, and bitcoin core devs always said this for the last decade until they became spam lovers.
And "inscriptions have stopped"... If inscriptions have stopped opening op_return is pointless, is it not, as there is no demand for data storage, and certainly not for one that's 4x as expensive. Btw what was the "economic demand" core devs fantasized about, but gave no evidence for?
reply
Fee estimation again... fee estimation is a terrible feature and only leads to users not learning how to manage fees properly, and about RBF.
With all due respect, this is completely incorrect.
And the main network "damage" is that spam miners
Do miners want blockspace or not? I know that some miners mine on 'principle' and that's great, good for them. But the vast majority mine in order to be rewarded with fees. Who and what pays fees?
until they became spam lovers.
That... is not true. Am I a 'spam lover' because I run core? I have zapped more sats to SN than I have stacked (according to the stats it shows). I just don't think relay policy works right now. It is broken and removing limits simplifies things... But I fully recognize I am NOT an expert. I have done the filtering myself on and off and I run Core at default settings and use Bitcoin when I have the opportunity.
I truly believe that is the best use of the network rn for most people.
there is no demand for data storage, and certainly not for one that's 4x as expensive.
There was always be demand for data storage. But that 'demand' has to compete with the world's monetary demand and there's no way that can happen without being incredibly expensive.
reply