pull down to refresh

Right! However, this is not a static situation as this is fully solveable with a relatively small amount of code: if people are truly serious about filtering, they could simply add a "purgatory" inside the mempool (or outside it, that doesn't matter) where all the crap lives that one does not want to relay or mine, but is still valid for (a) new txn inputs (where the new txns automatically end up in purgatory too unless the offending parent gets mined) and (b) compactblock reconstruction.
104 sats \ 6 replies \ @028559d218 3h
wait, what are you talking about specifically? Is this a mempool policy? or something else?
my understanding is that a 'complete' solution does exist, the 'purifier' solution but of course it is a hard-fork.
reply
I mean: if Knots devs want to not lose performance on block validation due to the filters, this is solvable by not purging policy-offending txs completely, but - in the simplest form - flagging them as "non-standard" and checking for that flag, before relaying or creating a block template.
This would eliminate the downside of having to re-request all the txs again when you get a compact block or a package with a child tx in there and largely remove the filter-specific part of any block withholding issue too.
reply
many of the knots-people (not the developers but the people following them) seem to think that by 'filtering the spam' they can keep it off their node completely. they want no spam they want to be 'spam-free' so they run knots to keep the spam 'to a minimum'.
like "filtering their email inbox" is how it is explained
they don't understand they actually download the spam regardless.

and then when the alternative/nuance is explained they say "oh you're just malicious"! "you hate bitcoin!"
"you're corrupt!!!" which is not helpful obviously.
reply
80 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2h
True, and I think that that's a generic issue across nearly every facet of society that I am aware of.
However: one would think that someone running an actual pool using that software would understand the benefits of not having to mine empty block templates for a minute. The impact - no matter how small - is in the block template inclusion policy. If one were to claim that the greatest good is financial transactions even at a loss of income, then mining an empty block isn't cool.

edit re: the emotional appeal. That's where we're at as humanity... I have a little experimental locally running AI that I can ask to rewrite an email without emotional pitfalls. It actually makes sense to simply feed every bitcoindev list mail to it.
Project for the coming weekend lol.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 2h
Yeah, one would think that people running a mining pool would understand the bigger picture and be able to argue with more nuance about this issue. At times it feels like a marketing campaign for Knots.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2h
For some I'm sure it is. It's mostly emotional though - to the extreme.
Do you know of any sites that measure subversion prominence over time rather than just snapshots? I don't want to unleash yet another spider onto the network.