pull down to refresh
84 sats \ 10 replies \ @Scoresby 9h \ on: Review of Jimmy Song v. Peter Todd filters debate (Plan ₿ Lugano) bitcoin
Thanks for writing this up! I was going to watch this debate, but I much more enjoyed reading your recap + thoughts. You did a very nice job.
I realize that bringing up OFAC and censorship can be a straw man, but I do think there is a logical argument there. Here is how I would make it:
IF filters are effective at reducing and/or preventing certain kinds of valid transactions from making being confirmed in blocks
THEN a filter that is designed to reduce and / or prevent transactions involving OFAC sanctioned addresses would also be effective
AND we (the good Bitcoiners) would be powerless to fight it if even a single actor deployed a lot of nodes
BECAUSE the cost of deploying nodes is near zero
HOWEVER: I think proof of work mechanism in Bitcoin was developed to solve exactly this problem:
See this from the whitepaper: "If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs" is Satoshi explaining why node filtering doesn't work. He introduced proof of work to fix this.
One of the reasons someone can only add new transactions to the chain is by demonstrating proof of work is to avoid relying on a central authority or relying on whoever has the most nodes.
What do you think? (I hope I'm not running off on some tangent that actually has nothing to do with how Todd used the OFAC argument. Personally, I've tried to make the case I made here and had people claim I was diverting or straw manning.)
I'm just going to braindump something I've been worried about for a while now:
IF filters are effective at reducing and/or preventing certain kinds of valid transactions from making being confirmed in blocks THEN[cut]
[paste] CSW was right that devs have a meaningful role in the network and the courts will fuck up devs.reply
ok, yeah, I follow.
Doesn't look like the courts will, so far, but rather cough cough, BIP-444, delusional clowns
Hmm, yes we've had some of this conversation before.
The part I'm most unsure about is this: "powerless to fight it if even a single actor deployed a lot of nodes". I'm not sure how effective deploying a lot of nodes is, I think network topology matters and I don't know the peering rules governing the protocol.
reply
Sure, but then isn't this also true for filters? It's not so much the filter that matters as who you peer with. Well, no matter that cat and mouse filter game, the people being filtered will always just circumvent via network topology.
Result: filters always end up being useless in the face of sustained demand.
reply
Result: filters always end up being useless in the face of sustained demand.
Yeah, I basically agree with that. That's why I say that filters work in a "narrow sense". You can filter out OFAC sanctioned addresses for example, but not necessarily OFAC sanctioned people, know what I mean?
So you can filter out >83 byte op_returns, but you can't filter out JPEGs
But you do increase the cost. Just, is it worth the collateral damage caused by mempool segmentation, side channels, unreliable fee rate estimation, etc.
reply
reply
I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what we believe will happen, what matters more is what we think people should do. I'm personally not too interested in doing anything regarding this debate. I think I have a solid enough grasp of the clash points already. I'm more interested in talking about how people can use bitcoin more in their everyday lives haha
I will say, though, that I think the people spouting off about CSAM are playing a very dangerous game. I think they should stop. @theariard's post today (#1269237) I think makes good points about this.
Thanks for writing this up! I was going to watch this debate, but I much more enjoyed reading your recap + thoughts. You did a very nice job.
indeed he did. Nice little snippets but also accurately and fairly portraying both sides
reply