Part of the reason why the Core side is a loser in the spam debate is that they generally prefer arguing from feelings and emotion, whereas the Knots side relies more on technical arguments
Login to reply
Replies (55)
Appeal to authority fallacy among many others..
pfffft hahahahahaha
we have reached levels of cringe previously thought impossible.
yes, the Core side appeals to authority a lot
however, the appeal to authority is not fallacious, it's just typically a weak argument, as the authorities might be wrong
in this case it's particularly weak because the authorities disagree
notice how instead of refuting my example logically, Calle wants to bring you to his side through ridicule. This is a classic example of sophistry: 
I've seen an equal amount of emotional and ad hominem style from both sides tbh. But that's on nostr only, I don't follow it on platforms.
Right, the team shouting CSAM every post aren't playing an emotional approach.
Dartmouth and Princeton students saw a game. Hasdorf, Cantril
They saw a game: a case study. Hastorf and Cantril on selective group perception of a Dartmouth v Princeton football game
Okay then...
Right, the team shouting CSAM every post aren't playing an emotional approach.
View quoted note →
Dartmouth and Princeton students saw a game. Hasdorf, Cantril
They saw a game: a case study. Hastorf and Cantril on selective group perception of a Dartmouth v Princeton football game
WTF are you on about? I just realized this was a quote to my post where I simply stated facts about chain being eternal and mempool mercurial.
You have just been added to the list of people who destroyed my respect for them by posting trolling rage bait about the core 30 changes rather than engaging in a good faith discussion about how to navigate a problem with no good solutions.
there is an excellent technical reason to bring up CSAM: it is a clear example of why spam is harmful, which is a principle tenet in the fight against it. Very often our ideological opponents say "there is nothing WRONG with spam" (e.g. here: ) or issue challenges like "you can't DEFINE spam" (e.g. here: https://x.com/L0RINC/status/1967404819716694518)
CSAM is an obvious way to counter these statements/challenges
Interesting, I use the 300MB default maxmempool and have never been harmed by spam. Sounds like FUD to me.
View quoted note →
nice try 
pure braindead progadanda
And there is no way to get there but a think of the children?
It is an argument designed to destroy rational thought about the problem. Literally 101 how to make the other person reactionary instead of reasoning. It also makes you reactionary instead of reasoning.
There is a problem to solve, let's both of us turn off half our brains and devolve into ideological demagogues. That always helps.
this, friends, is another appeal to emotion: the classic ad hominem
when a sophist has insufficient logical or technical support for his arguments, he often resorts to insulting his opponents
emotionally needy people don't want to identify with the maligned by getting on their "side," so they can be swayed to side A by insulting side B
you're not good at this
> And there is no way to get there but a think of the children?
It is a fast way there, and efficiency is very usefl
> It is an argument designed to destroy rational thought
Rather, it is an argument to focus it
good thesis
now provide reasons
no π€£
thank you for demonstrating my argument
very impressive
Aaaand there it is.
thinkofthechildren.gif
yes
for the reasons given, "thinking of the children" is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up in a technical debate
it immediately counters the statements/challenges mentioned and instantly illustrates a central tenets of the pro-filter position: that spam is harmful
I can't tell by the level of discourse here by you and others that it definitely has not done anything to improve the technical quality of the discourse.
Not one answer for the fact that I keep posting that knots real solution is that they are making Cloudflare scanning a defacto part of Bitcoin by insisting on a solution that makes all large op_returns MARA and trusting their scanning slipstream submissions. (I'll admit I don't know for sure who they are using but the principle is the same about trusting a 3rd party black box especially proven by us not even knowing whose closed source solution they use)
Not one answer when I posted about how ocean, datum, and knots are the best way to put CSAM on chain before core 30.
Even you who I used to respect for quality technical posting about lightning are posting a multi day emotional blast without any technicals.
We all need to do better and be better. Help me start us down that path instead of being a part of the problem.
> Not one answer for the fact that I keep posting that knots real solution is that they are making Cloudflare scanning a defacto part of Bitcoin by insisting on a solution that makes all large op_returns MARA and trusting their scanning slipstream submissions
The knots solution does not make *any* large op_returns MARA
The knots solution simply filters large op_returns from your own mempool
If a spammer therefore submits the large op_return to MARA that is not knots' fault, and if MARA mines it, that too is not knots' fault
> ocean, datum, and knots are the best way to put CSAM on chain before core 30
How so? I am not familiar with this claim
Slipstream is a path right around knots. Knots has 0 ability to keep CSAM out of the chain. That means what knots is really counting on to keep CSAM off chain is whatever screening method MARA uses for slipstream.
The mempool only thing is a dodge to avoid facing the real problem. If it gets on chain by any path every node has to serve that block from that day to the end of bitcoin. Mempool is not a real solution to the real risk.
I am the only one I have seen put together this claim. Here it is.
Pre core 30 thinking the situation before the change through.
Miners offering large op_returns scan them for illegal content. Makes sense. If MARA accepts CSAM we can all see that it went into the block they mined and was non standard. Legally very risky for them with a permanent public immutable record that it came from them.
Only if others start relaying large op_returns do the large pools offering this service have deniability that maybe the illegal content came from the wider mempool somewhere.
That means before core 30 you need to basically run your own anonymous service for your own configurable block templates and then mine a block if you want to put CSAM on chain and maybe get away with it.
Follow so far?
That means that before core 30 the easiest way to put CSAM on the blockchain is Ocean, DATUM, and Knots combined with a hash rate for hire service.
RIP my replies.
View quoted note →
Who does both?
ππππ
No, it is fallacious in this case. It's as simple as that.
Simply put
What theyβre doing doesnβt make sense
But in that case it's an actual argument.
Yes. If you are in favor of raising the OP_RETURN limit to 100,000 bytes and removing its configurability, you NEED to bite this bullet and say why CSAM is acceptable in people's mempools for your stated reasons.
I like how you are still dancing around the topic, refusing to address it. Pathetic human being.
Same reason itβs acceptable on chain (itβs already there btw)βBitcoin must be neutral and censorship resistant. This has unfortunate and unavoidable tradeoffs. If youβre scared of it, donβt run a node.
Even if their argument is "highly technical" it still must follow logic, which it definitely does not.
Yeah. Iβm still waiting for any core people to not just sperg out ad hominem nonsense.
Formulate a fucking argument plz
π€
It is of near 0 consequence of what knots users do or don't do...[1]
Don't be afraid of them. Embrace them.
Knots is not about filtering spam.
It is about signalling that we don't like spam.
You say signalling is stupid? Our whole society works 99% on signalling alone. Autists don't like it, but rest of people (99%) follow it.
[1]
OpenTimestamps and Knots/OCEAN
Is OpenTimestamps incompatible with or threatenedby the Bitcoin Knots fork of BitcoinCore and/or the OCEANmining pool?
This proves that bot sides of this argument are stupid btw.
YES, filter are practically useless for filtering spam.
YES, noderuners should have options to manage their node as they see fit.
Is this a classic example of the use of ridicule as a domination technique?
Spam is subject to semantics. If it was not, we would still have decentralized email, because relays could have easily determined unsolicited or otherwise unwanted data, and more providers would exist, not a fiat reputation system of a handful of players applying arbitrary filters, banning mostly anyone from the system that is not in the oligopoly.
If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone.
We have to draw an arbitrary line to not expose ourselves to malicious attacks though, and the most neutral way to do that is using money i.e. economic incentives. It is the most objective tool of valuation that humans have.
**Valuation** determines spam, which is subjective but money makes it less so, with global consensus enforced by cryptography.
That's why we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with. To do that would lead back to authoritarian regimes. Doing so serves our low time-preference brain rather than whimsical action.
Using bitcoin with the most adherence to reality is dropping this arbitrary limit standing in the way of economic incentives, in my opinion.
I could be wrong bit that is where I am right now.
Heard some good advice yesterday. Listen to your detractors closely.
Reasoning is that them being your opponents, they need to to see something in reality that you might not.
> Spam is subject to semantics
In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition: chainspam is data embedded in blockchain txs not there solely to securely transfer, reclaim, or privatize value. Transfer means reduce the senders' amount and increase the recipients'. Reclaim means restore part/all of the senders' amount after a failed payment. Privatize means do a coinjoin or similar.
> If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone
It may be possible to express the above definition in one or more algorithms that together filter all spam except possibly for spam requiring off-chain disclosure of a deciphering key. But even if not, there are algorithms that eliminate entire classes of spam from user mempools; they are in use in Knots, for example. One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful.
> we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with
Interesting choice of the term "censoring." Why is it wise to filter DoS attacks? Because users find them harmful, regardless of whether the attacker feels censored. For the same reason, it is wise for users to filter any spam they don't want in their mempools, regardless of whether the creator feels censored.
Calle doesn't know what a node is. He only code custodial apps for a paycheck in dollars.
> "In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition"
Emphasis on **also**. You still are providing examples, not authoritative definition because if we could code sth like this exactly, we would already have done it and made it consensus.
> "One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful."
I agree. That is why there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat.
If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them because their nodes would crash and mining operations would be disrupted.
They are valid transactions you (and I for the matter) don't agree with but the economical incentive says it is profitable to mine them, and it causes a less far-reaching impact than doing such things in other ways. A filter that disrupts economic activity and has worse impacts than dropping it, is harmful overall.
Users can make whimsical choices and think they will virtue signal with filters but I estimate this is not going to be enough when facing economic reality, especially in the long run.
> there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat. If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them
This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. You say spam doesn't present a threat similar to a DoS vector; I say they both cause serious harm, but spam does so more subtly and more slowly. This article by Chris Guida outlines why: 
As for why miners continue to mine spam, that is the golden goose problem: financial incentives can cause miners to slowly and subtly harm the goose, a knife cut at a time, to get the golden egg more quickly. But the goose may die by a thousand cuts. It is part of why I personally want to eliminate spam from my mempool and slow down blocks that contain it -- to provide a counter financial incentive so that miners will reconsider whether they should mine it or not. And it is also why I invite others to join me in the effort
X (formerly Twitter)
Chris Guida | β‘πͺ’ BIP110 (@cguida6) on X
Several core supporters have pointed me to Pieter Wuilleβs recent StackExchange post[0] explaining coreβs rationale for raising the default opr...
> slow down blocks that contain it
Do you relay blocks that have spam Txs to your peers?
Also this seems to disproportionately hurt small miners more
What dancing? My entire argument is that knots humpers need to knock of their victory lap because they have not solved the problem.
Your knots node is gonna serve the same CSAM block content as core for all eternity. Somehow I'm the pathetic human being for wanting that fixed instead of joining the cult? Fuck all the way off.
What's this solution you suddenly have that's better than the option to use filters?
You never mentioned anything of the sort before. You're so full of shit.
And this argument was about mempool policy. You're not even worth talking to with how you evade.
You are evading the very real issue of serving block content by bragging about your mempool. A transient problem with a bandaid but a permanent problem remains.
Maybe you should have read what I wrote in this thread at least before calling names. You are wrong to say I didn't say that and anyone who can read can see you didn't bother.
I'm not a dev but I can see the problem. As long as knots fanboys are celebrating solving a problem they haven't solved and core devs don't GAF no one is even looking or trying to find a real solution.
So I bust my ass trying to raise the issue and all I get is morons on both sides calling me names and dodging the issue.
Knots proposed and has implemented a solution to rate limited Ordinals. Spam is a cat and mouse game you have to fight on the mempool level, to not drift towards censorship.
I think it's valid to say that the quantity of spam on the chain is a relevant factor and if we can reduce 99% of that it's a good outcome. It makes a difference if the network makes an effort to reduce this behavior or if it opens itself up to it with all guards down.
I didn't say I solved the goddamn problem in any kind of final way. This issue is about mempool sovereignty. It is NOT about a complete solution to spam. Core are being intellectually dishonest and subverting mempool sovereignty, so that takes precedence in the goals of the clued in and responsible among us Knots fans. I never claimed to have all of the answers. You are probably projecting your own arrogance or grouping me in with people I have little in common with.
A real solution to the problem is secondary to the immediate threat that is posed by Core's bullshit. You would be wise to actually engage intellectually with individuals like myself. I have given you the same consideration you gave me, and then some. You can go on assuming bad faith, or you can grow the fuck up and realize there's more to people's goals than just trying to shut you up. It's not all about you. I happen to have very serious reasons to prioritize what I do, but I am open to discussing long term solutions for later down the line, like a consensus change.