pull down to refresh

I think you oversimplify, @Scoresby. Bitcoin is very complex.
"Bitcoin works because consensus rules are all that matter" is false. There are many more critical success factors at play. It's not that one day Satoshi implemented "consensus rules" and Bitcoin came to be and succeeded. (As a side note, Satoshi himself changed the rules many times).
Both consensus rules and mempool filters are needed and also both of them need updating (fixes, improvements etc.).
Regarding the malware Core v30 - there isn't any (formal) reason for meddling with the mempool policy default settings. The author Gregory Sanders hadn't informed about one. Instead, he and his co-workers dictated it and later gaslit about the change. Two years earlier, the same change had been requested by Peter Todd as he had taken $1000 bribe from a simp for Ethereum guru Vitalik Buterin, to do it (source: GitHub repository). Peter Todd deployed malware on Bitcoin nodes a few weeks ago. He exploited the well-known vulnerability (P2SPAM or so-called OP_RETURN) in Bitcoin protocol. The impact of the vulnerability had been moderate throughout the years so there hadn't been pressure to fix it immediately. Virtually all node runners relied on the mempool policy to somewhat mitigate the issue. Core v30 unilaterally breached the status quo, doing so against Bitcoiners who run honest nodes.
The time to fix the P2SPAM vulnerability has come, apparently. The security patch will affect code of consensus rules. Bitcoin has always been P2P monetary network and releases of Core malware don't invalidate the statement.
I agree that consensus rules need to change, but I disagree that mempool policies are useful to any great extent (and I certainly don't think they are worth getting worked up over).
While I don't think "Bitcoin came to be and succeeded," I do think Satoshi managed to get a few key elements in place and that started this whole thing off. I'll settle for filter proponents suggesting a change to block validation rules and standing by it.
reply
Let's do it. Would you like to contribute and spread the word about the idea, perhaps? I am going to contribute on the technical side and I already openes the discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 9h
I already openes the discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list.
Link?
I applaud your effort to fork off.
reply
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 8h
I am not your peer, I want you to fork off.
reply
That's okay. 💪
reply
I'll settle for their suggestion. Personally o don't think the issue is worth changing consensus rules.
But I'd respect the argument a lot more if that is what they were proposing. Good luck.
reply