Bitcoin core devs are attacking the network by blotting the UTXO set with arbitrary data to centralize Bitcoin in the hands of a few so they can break it. Don't let it happen run Bitcoin Knots, share this spread the message.
pull down to refresh
15 sats \ 4 replies \ @LibertasBR 27 Apr
I don't know enough to understand what's going on. I've seen several posts about spam on the Bitcoin network. What is it, how is it done and what is its purpose?
reply
155 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 27 Apr
The purpose of ‘the spam’ is to get you to buy memecoins, jpegs or nfts. That’s it.
Most of this activity comes out of China, probably Hong Kong.
Op_return outputs on Bitcoin have existed for 10 years… and now that memecoins on altcoins are dying there is a new scam - the same ‘memecoins’ but on Bitcoin in the form of arbitrary data.
Op_return outputs, unspendable outputs, have always been a place for arbitrary data on Bitcoin - op return was specifically created as the “least harmful” way of encoding arbitrary data for whatever purpose. Now degens have created ‘tokens’ and ‘memes’ using op_return and there is no way to keep them from gambling on… tiny injections of code based on dog memes.
Bitcoin knots, a custom bitcoin implementation, has a set ‘mempool policy’ where the bitcoin transactions don’t get propagated to the broader network if they include arbitrary data. However even op_return outputs are still valid as long as current nodes propagate them or they are sent to miners directly.
Therefore bitcoin core and most devs believe that trying to ‘limit’ the arbitrary data sizes through ‘mempool policy’ does more harm than good - it hurts the transparency of the mempool and won’t stop degens anyway. The degens will include arb data anyway… just to gamble by paying miners or spooling up their own nodes and using op_return in its current form of 10 years.
The ‘other side’ of the argument is… OK degens may degen on tokens but that doesn’t mean we should make it easy for them. It should be as difficult as possible for them to do this… even if it’s not 100% complete.
The first solution (letting degens burn themselves out) is economic - the degens eventually run out of money as memecoins are a fad. If Bitcoin can’t compete against gambling… it never had a future anyway and it doesn’t help to ‘fragment’ mempools.
The second… is technical. If somehow memecoin arb data never makes it to ‘the mempool’ to begin with then the degens will just… give up. Which personally doesn’t make any sense to me (and is the prevailing opinion among traditional core devs).
The issue still isn’t ‘100%’ resolved… and so the debate around it continues with passion on both sides.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibertasBR 27 Apr
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I will use it as a guide to understand the problem even further.
Regarding the solutions you mentioned, the economic one seems to me the most correct, let them run out, indeed the impacts don't seem good to me
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 1 May
I read a little more about it and giving my 2 cents on this subject I think they shouldn't remove the Op_return limitation. Changing this would distort the purpose of Bitcoin in my view, allowing it to become a public record of any type of content, and just imagine what could come, instead of a decentralized and uncensorable ledger. That's how I see it and I may learn new facts that will reinforce or change my view.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 27 Apr
Greatest explaination I could get. Thank you!
reply
110 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 27 Apr
Messing with mempool policies in a way that makes them unreliable for miners will centralize mining even more.
Mempools exist so a node can estimate fees. If your mempool does not include the transactions that a miner will most likely mine next, your mempool is useless.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 29 Apr
a deep and useful comment.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 27 Apr
Making it easier and cheaper to OP_RETURN is messing with the mempool policies. The ideal choice is for devs to do nothing but if they want to ease it we must act against it.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 27 Apr
but not in a way that makes them unreliable for miners ...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 27 Apr
Miners don't need more OP_RETURN to survive. They can live off regular tx fees and block rewards that they deserve and that's how it supposed to work.
Again the best thing is to do is nothing, not to ease not to harden.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 29 Apr
more color
"many of the idiotic 'data storage' things are either intentionally or inadvertently exploiting the fact that behaving abusively about public resources gets them a ton of free attention."
"Fundamentally Bitcoin has already 'solved' the abusive resource use by limiting the total resource usage. I'll be the first to agree that the solution is far from perfect, but the alternative of chasing down the abuse, judging it, blocking it, etc. can easily be much worse and doubly so when it gives them a lot of free press and validation as "important enough to censor" -- a benefit that some parties might even be intentionally behaving abusively to secure."
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/bitcoin_cores_github_mods_have_been_banning_users/mpm32oe/
from Greg Maxwell / null c ( OG dev-bitcoin )
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 3 May
I agree with you but not fixing the bug that's letting them sabotage Bitcoin is affecting Bitcoin really bad. Back when this first started I used to be like that but then I realised running a node back then used to take way less time to synchronise than today when it can take almost a month. These people know what they are doing they want want to break bitcoin and Bitcoin devs wanting to ease it to help them do more is same as participating in the vandalism.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @standardcrypto 28 Apr
IMHO incoherent and misleading. also neglects to link the thread which is at
https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ/m/mJyek28lDAAJ?pli=1
I add that towards the end of the current existing thread I think Pieter Wiulle speaks with authority, like a leader.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 28 Apr
Bitcoin has no leader
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @standardcrypto 28 Apr
but it has leaders.
this isn't a feature of Bitcoin.
it's a feature of primate mammals.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @piecoverBTC OP 28 Apr
Bitcoin core devs are not dictators of Bitcoin, nobody should tell you which software to run nor what to run on it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 28 Apr
here I agree with you.
more people should run other clients.
reply