this is bullshit for what its worth
sane people do not think luke or core should control bitcoin and fortunately neither do
Login to reply
Replies (191)
This is getting a little ridiculous and pushes Bitcoin towards a speculative asset.
A fork war every cycle?
It that the fate of Bitcoin?
Is it just going to be like the 4 yr election cycle?
View quoted note →
all will be fine, comes with the territory
a few people cannot unilaterally change bitcoin
what's the bullshit? why not focus on the proposal instead of making it about someone?
The entire LukeCoin narrative is bullshit.
the bullshit is of course a soft fork pushed through without consensus will result in a chainsplit
otherwise any of us could change the rules of bitcoin at will, whenever the fuck we wanted to
Well, they surely seem to think they can change it, and by the looks of it, Luke has many hoodwinked to follow suit. The end game for this is what exactly? Having Papacy figure tell the users what is a monetary use-case and what is not?
In the name of greater good? Well, fuck that.
It appears like both Core and Dashjr are fighting over Bitcoin as if they own it. When do the nodes get to speak? They all need smacked down. We didn’t ask for Core 30 or a soft fork.
We all have opinions
Not buying the argument that I am legally responsible for other people's actions
Not a fan of expanding op-return limits, but also expect BIP 444 to create more problems than it solves
So tired of all the genius rockstars fucking with shit
neither control bitcoin
neither can change the rules
run and use your own node
secure bitcoin keys yourself
Necesitamos correr más nodos y que haya más opciones además de core o knots
Do the Devs of today share the common goal of separating money from state, or what is their goal?
there are many devs
most do, some dont
it’s not education, it’s propaganda
i will run the node software that doesn't hardfork AND removes as many database incentives from Bitcoin as possible. its simply really. Bitcoin is money. my money. stop screwing with my money.
i have been very consistent, you should run what you want
just know that it can absolutely result in a chainsplit if you run a client that pushes through a soft fork without consensus
There is literally nothing in his post that is bullshit.
Try to educate yourself first on softfork and hardfork activation before claiming that this is all BS.
You are getting more and more miserable and you are also making Nostr plebs miserable.
I hope some well known (honest) influencers on the Nostr start countering your BS arguments at some point.
you dont have to, there isn't many financially viable ways to store blob data on bitcoin.
> There is literally nothing in his post that is bullshit.
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
Agree with your second paragraph. I definitely don't _want_ to control Bitcoin.
No idea why you think that's at all related to the screenshot, though
1. That's not what he said. Also define consensus there's two different consensuses at play here.
2. Wait Bcash had majority support and still lost? Interesting. I didn't know being influential ACTUALLY makes you the majority.
The CSAM stuff is a red herring but that post was accurate.
Guys JUST refute him on the merits and this would be over.
Figure out how to run Libbitcoin. (Not easy)
Because it's a cash cow to some, just like the recent op_return change by a few select core devs is - and as the old saying goes "money corrupts people".
there has never been a soft fork pushed through without consensus but if one were to it would natually result in a chainsplit
otherwise any of us could change bitcoin rules at will
this is basic shit
you should improve your understanding rather than continuing your harassment of me but so be it either way
Yes and no. If the people who managed to pushed through the op_return change also buddy buddy with the majority of, or the largest mining pools, they do in some way control it. Then they have effectively bypassed most of the nodes in the network, just like the "pay a miner to include in a block" and on a larger scale.
If this happens where is the decentralised part of bitcoin?
Do you have any good resources you can point me towards to understand your arguments here?
Relatively new bitcoiner and I am having trouble navigating this debate to choose the software I want my node to run on.
I think I understand the core pov. I think I understand the knots pov. Both from a semi technical perspective.
What I am struggling with is reconciliating the governance methods. Core v30's decision to "censor" the debate on GitHub, and Dashjr's decision to soft fork or whatever he wants to do.
I don't think I understand why either camps took these measures. Neither of them seem like a gesture of good faith and/or rational thinking.
A properly written softfork only activates with say 90% consensus by a specific block height. If it doesn't reach 90% then nothing happens, nothing to see here, move along.
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
- if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
that assumes the soft fork promoters actually want to build consensus
It's connected to the screenshot because asserting the protocol is content agnostic is not supporting the dissemination child porn.
Your authoritarian tendencies are showing.
SegWit was a softfork that resulted in bcash hard fork a couple of weeks in advance.
History sometimes is more complex than we think.
The bcash hard fork happened mainly over SegWit ("ugly code that introduces technical debt and encourages non monetary uses" which sounds familiar if you ask me ) and not like most think solely over blocksize. Although bcash came with 8M blocks from the beginning if I remember correctly that got later increased to 32M, when BSV forked to get their infinite blocksizes.
Nobody is PUSHING this softfork without consensus. I don't know why you are making false statements.
If that's the case then you might not have seen reply like this on that BIP. Legitimate concerns are being addressed.
Why do you think any BIP will get instant buy-in from all of the plebs without any pushback/arguments?
And I am not saying chainsplit wouldn't occur.
Do you actually read anything what I said in my post?
Probably not because if that's the case then you wouldn't have said that I am harassing you.
I am just calling you out for your compromised/delusional behavior.
And where were you when shitcoin core devs were pushing changes like op_return limit without broad support from bitcoiners? You never made a big deal like this during that time.
Can you see why I keep calling you CORECUCK?
What happened, that we now talk about the possibility of allowing or not allowing illegal content on every copy of the blockchain? What is the reason that this could become a topic?
Tell the truth faggot.
> softfork without consensus
> you wouldn't have said that I am harassing you
> I keep calling you CORECUCK
lmfao
Sounds like C. W. all over again
As usual you keep taking posts/comments out of context.
You can block or mute me if you want but the beating will continue until you stop being CORECUCK. 😎
Now way this is going to work
or just admit the BCashers were right?
what wallet connects to libbitcoin?
what that looks like in practice is Bcash
no Segwit, larger blocks
Yeah its the same picture
this is still the blocksize war
we fucked up and nobody knows what to do about it apparently
Why is this bullshit?
People are using Knots or Core.
If there are other platforms with the same security, enlighten us.
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
- more people should use their own bitcoin node, they can run whatever software they want
- if the desire is to try to push through a soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
So when a normie friend asks what this whole debate/argument is about, how do I explain this in laymans terms?
Not every soft fork leads to a chain split. While Taproot and Segwit have dissent, they haven’t resulted in a split.
There’s a non-zero probability that CSAM on nodes can be outlawed, which can’t help adoption.
While everyone can run their own node, not everyone is savvy enough to patch their bitcoin software, unless you make a highly customizable version.
every soft fork has had overwhelming consensus
if one does not it will result in a chainsplit
"bcash" is a prejorative adam back and greg maxwell invented when they were seething about it on reddit. you're not supposed to call it that when you're not going out of your way to belittle it
cost doesn't deter art NFT enthusiasts and it never did. the higher cost can actually make it more enticing
So instead of having a small opening to misuse you expect opening it up completely removes the problem?
Like removing speed limits on roads? It's a flawed statement. One used over and over without solving anything.
That plus Lopp openly saying that the reason is "a use case by Citrea": to be able to broadcast and instantly verify information/data without waiting for it to be included in a block.
If the miner centralisation is the/an issue that people actually want to solve, then support things like small miner projects. Bring back the original idea by Satoshi, one miner in every home. That would be a place to start.
Remove the incentive to pool everything together like in most centralised blockchains controlled by one or a few large entities.
Work on making bitcoin what it was actually created to be: an alternative to the flawed legacy system. Money for the people not the banks.
The basis of the legal issues are nonsensical but also this change doesn’t solve for them in any case.
In the case of the reactive activation of this soft fork and chaotic chain reorganization: How am I supposed to trust that op return was used for large sized illegal content without viewing the illegal content. Suddenly you expect node operators to examine data and decode it to reveal illegal content? The very act of doing so making them far more legally liable than simply routing encoded data. And the alternative is that node operators have to simply trust me bro?
I’m reject bitcoin cashjr and the insanity of this proposal.
- Soft fork with consensus could still result in a chainsplit (but maybe very short period of time)
- Chainsplit created by soft fork is NOT meant to be permanent.
- Nobody is talking about hard fork
- Nobody is trying to PUSH this softfork with legal thereat. (Stop taking sentences out of the context and improve your reading comprehension skill)
- On that note, feedback has been provided by @Bitcoin Mechanic to change the language
Good job being CORECUCK
Not necessarily.
Chain splitting will only occur if the minority enforces new rules that the majority rejects.
If the majority enforces the new rules, the minority can still use the old rules
Making a legal opinion based on zero credibility in order to push a change is the disingenuous element. Luke has no fucking idea what he is talking about and his retarded morality can go fuck itself.
Do this thing or you might be liable is a threat. And worse it is a threat based on an intentional lie or based on ignorance, but in either case it is an attempt to force people to do what he wants under the threat of violence. It matters not who is bringing the violence. Be it god or law it is still a threat being made.
Segwit really did that rather than taproot
> if your desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
Justify claiming Luke is threatening anybody with legal action. Pointing out CSAM is a legal risk in general does not qualify.
The more lucrative coin is the one that people want to receive in exchange for something else, and these transactions are validated by "economic nodes".
You have misunderstood what problem is being solved.
How much are your CIA handlers paying you? After you lost your btc must be the only way to support the family.
my words were very clear:
if his desire is to try to push through this soft fork with legal threats that is lame as fuck and will probably fail
you literally coming in here white knighting for luke while calling me a cuck is peak irony
Orphaning blocks the majority of miners recognize for its economic incentive will result in a chain split from the minority. The debate was over when over 50% of hash rate was in favor of higher OP_Returns. I do not see a world where this doesn't end with 2 chains. Tread the waters carefully because your PoW is stored on the chain that has the hashrate consensus.
nobody can easily change bitcoin
many want to control it
the value is that they cannot
Do you have inside info about legal threats?
BSV was successful hammered because they forked away from bitcoin, not because of some specific attack surface. Questioning why they chose the code changes is fine. They’ve answered why they did it and not liking their answer does not equal shoving down your throat.
idk you are talking based on what. inscriptions become popular because they cost less. and they are possible because core removed script size limit policy on witness for tapscripts. ignoring all the warnings.
inscription txs cost less than a dolar.
also even without the history its really simple to understand: cost always gonna make it less.
there are not many places you can sneak data into a tx.
nobody is gonna create thousands of txs just for an image constantly.
Not a threat. At most it's FUD - which is totally fair to view as disingenuous.
If I told you that you should buy gold instead of bitcoin because I think the U.S. government will inevitably outlaw Bitcoin altogether, that would be an opinion; not at threat. You may think I have no idea what I'm talking about; and, consequently dismiss it as disingenuous. That would be your opinion. It's all good.
Not really.
One can run Core 29 and stay in consensus indefinitely, or at least until they stop supporting it
Core easily changed Bitcoin.
Right. If I was holding both in self-custody and I was confident about which would *win*, I would trade the bad coin for USD (or tether) and then turn around a buy the good one. During the fork, I doubt people will be *buying anything* on chain, if that's what you were referring to.
Similar logic: miners who want more good coin will follow the market winner and point their hash accordingly.
That's a loaded question. How do you know Luke desires to push through the soft fork with legal threats?
It seems either you are completely drunk or miserable.
You really can't comprehend what I am saying here.
I am white knighting for more monetary maximalist version of bitcoin while calling you a CORECUCK.
Oh, it's bs! Now I get it. Thank you for your clear, constructive, informative input.
Eh it’s the same way a protection racket doesn’t threaten your business. They are just protecting you from those that would do you harm but you have to pay them to get their protection…who knows what sort of bad things might happen to you and who might be the authors of those bad things in the future.
If you want to play semantical games that’s fine, but please don’t ignore the intentions of these scum bag bootlickers.
"It matters not who is bringing the violence".
What makes a protection racket different is that it absolutely DOES matter.
I’ll just say that people bringing these threats to the forefront of the Bitcoin community will likely be in league with the people who put the large op return csam on chain, but if for some reason that’s not true it won’t invalidate the scum baggers of trying to change Bitcoin because of the fear mongering of state violence.
The pearl clutching statist cucks can fuck themselves right off.
what dont you understand about the highly technical and detailed information conveyed by the phrase "lame as fuck", pleb!?
he even doubled down on its self-evidence - SO THERE!
what are you a stoopid christian or summin' ?
e.g. your neighbor business warning you "I think they may get violent if you don't pay the protection" is not a threat from the neighbor business.
you can start by not calling it bcash
I think it was a 1/2 punch. SegWit made it cheap; Taproot made it possible for data to be large.
Without the discount from SegWit, the fees for large images would likely be prohibitive. Without Taproot's relaxed limits, the full image wouldn't fit in a single, standard transaction. I could be wrong
In which case they are part of the protection racket. We must assume the neighboring business is funding the protection racket just as we must assume that these soft forkers are agents of the legal/moral consequence bringers. While they may claim to be unwilling agents they are doing the work to undermine Bitcoin regardless of their stated intention.
The fact that their threats are based on dubious legal theory and have no basis in reality is strong evidence that they are willing agents of the state and not helpful neighbors.
it has ABLA now. it starts at 32 MB and can double only once per year if blocks are full the whole time. then if they are not full it keeps decreasing until it reaches 32 MB again. if it hasn't increased in a very long time it's allowed to 4x in a year.
"We must assume the neighboring business is funding the protection racket"
Wow.
That’s how protection rackets work. They don’t just target one business…they target the neighborhood. Anyone paying the racket is funding their operations.
A soldier who loads the weapons that are used to kill civilians is liable for the war crime…perhaps not as much as the ones ordering the killings but they are part of the immoral machinery. Ignorance or fear do not absolve you of guilt.
Bitcoin is anarchy
legal threats does fuck all
No. I've heard, read and watched arguments from both sides and from the people writing the code changes and I see the many new problems being introduced by these change not the useful benefits.
What is the use case for the complete removal of the op_return limit? And don't use arguments that Ethereum can't already do.
core did not change bitcoin
the rules of the network literally did not change
- soft forks without consensus result in a chainsplit
- bcash was a hard fork with minority support so it trended to zero
No, I’m saying BSV was a shitcoin and that’s why it lost value. All the value moved back to Bitcoin and other altcoins. The spam is not what made it lose value and it is in no way a model of what will happen to Bitcoin.
Nope. Not true.
Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.
Core changed the fundamental use-case of Bitcoin. It used to be a ledger, now it's storage. Changing the rules of what can be put on the network indirectly and profoundly changed the network.
That’s not true to what was done. I understand we’ve all been fed a ton of different versions but this is fundamentally untrue.
Since there's now good evidence against this "legal threat" narrative I think you should take the L on this and admit you were wrong.
View quoted note →
Ok, so you acknowledge that there was a large increase in spam after the op return change and you’re ok with that potentially happening on the bitcoin network is what I think you’re saying. I never mentioned BSV’s value.
Luke seriously needs to fuck off.
No, it went to zero because it was shit run by a scammer.
Just read the BIP
Read the fucking BIP
💯
💯
Dude, get off the internet. Go touch grass, spend time with your family. We don't need you to "save bitcoin".
We need a bigger jar
I am not worried about the increase in OP-RURTURN default size. Block size has a hard cap and fees are the filter that forces the determination of what people value enough to put in transactions. For a while I might consider a bunch of that as spam but I’m confident over time monetary use of bitcoin is what humanity will value most.
Am I too dumb, or am I missing something? I thought that if the majority of people refuse to upgrade to #core30 or decide to run #knots, then the nodes will simply reject the those blocks with the core30 #OP_RETURN increased values as invalid / violarong the prior consensus, keeping the #bitcoin #timechain intact. Thus, if core devs want to still be relevant, they will kinda have to reverse the change. No need of a #softfork; no need of a #hardfork.
#btc is freedom, and that means choice. The node-runners are free to choose.
I did …. And it talks about motivations for why they think the BIP is needed. No threats.
I’d rather not risk 95% of my wealth on someone’s faith in humanity when we have slavery, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, etc. The code can enforce the monetary use without financial censorship. That is exactly what it should do. If someone wants data storage, set up your storage and fucking own it!
The same rule must apply to core's recent change.
You're a good parrot
Imagine this in all caps
The problem is that core30 adoption is growing quickly, increasing the risks of corrupting the BTC chain for all node runners.
If it's true, I'll repeat it.
Hey @ODELL it seems like you always miss the point with pointing out @Luke Dashjr ‘s wild tone. The thing is core 30 brings BS to Bitcoin network. Bitcoin is money not data storage
the fee was marked as optimal
Bitcoin Core v30 is the hard fork.
Nope. Bitcoin Core v30 replicates what was done to the shit coin BSV.
Study BSV, bro.
But core30 trying to change Bitcoin network to data storage. Bitcoin is money!
You are
Optimal to cheat the system
Are you okay with Bitcoin becoming data storage?
Core 30 brings BS we need to keep Bitcoin as money, agree?
Have fun playing with your BTK tokens
I've already mentioned one of the reasons above.
Pieter Wuille has articulated it best.
Yes one of the forks will go to zero. Probably the one with the illegal content on it!
There’s no faith in humanity, there are obvious incentives if you have solid secure code. You want people who can do what you can’t to change their engineering decisions based on your feels. Good luck with your chain split🙄
sadly, in the physical world there are laws. Bitcoin nodes run in the physical world and people go to prison in the physical world.
How many people in the world do you think would like to take down Bitcoin if they could?
“I’m confident over time monetary use of bitcoin is what humanity will value most.”
“There’s no faith in humanity.”
Which is it? Rhetorical question. No need for an answer because it’s irrelevant to me.
Started development at 11 years old in 1981. Have an engineering degree. Developed large scalable applications for major corporations. Have not taken the dive into bitcoin code and would need to ramp up again on C++, but you know my capabilities. What you think you know from assumptions only and what you say reeks of stupidity and arrogance. Good luck.
BSV?
Nice resume yet you think Core is shoving code down people’s throat, ok.
I think the incentives of Bitcoin will cause both the kind and evil people to choose Bitcoin as their money. People using it for other than monetary means will be pushed out. If you think that means faith in humanity so be it. I don’t assume to know anything about you other than what you write and that you seem to think people who disagree with you are arrogant. Welcome to nostr btw, happy to have you here whether you like me or not.
BSV is the retarded stepson of the blocksize discussion
From what I've seen they have solved the scaling issue without changing the protocol (version 1 of the whitepaper)
its easy to scale when you have zero usage
According to coindance they have 48% of total Bitcoin transactions?
But then again this data is not really verified 
I agree with @ODELL on this one
impossible to know since nobody runs a node either
Apparently, lol but the data is incorrect. You can check other sources .
A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain.
The non-soft fork chain will be re-org'ed out of existence every time the soft fork chain becomes longer, because non-upgraded nodes will switch to it.
If users/miners on the non-soft fork chain want to prevent this, they need to take action to reject the soft fork chain.
Luke is right about that.
You're right.
Wot
👀 👆
Thanks for the clarification.
@ODELL , totally respect your decision to oppose BIP 444, but given some of your posts, I'm wondering if you're not straw manning the other side.
Will most certainly fail
What is the current average blocksize? Did it get spamed to only become usable in data centres like Core people suggested?
Are youb saying Bitcoin maxis (Knotzis) are now in their own camp "bcash" and should fork or that they should switch to bcash (BCH) as it is more aligned with their values?
I don't use that term in a derogatory way. Just like I don't think Zcash and Dash are bad names.
I am using Clark Moody's dashboard (https://dashboard.clarkmoody.com/) where core30 is at 7.3%. Wow, that is fast adoption. Boy, was I wrong to assume that node-runners would choose not to upgrade. Let's hope that many would have manually configured the OP_RETUTN max value to the previous limit.
BSV went to zero because huge blocks, and refusal to implement the lightning fixes in Segwit, are how a smart person designs a blockchain
BSV went to zero because it was a useless redundant shitcoin controlled by a guy with a God complex who conducted lawfare against developers.
No, it objectively is not a hard fork.
Good parrot.
You don't have to update to v30. There is no throat shoving. You have agency.
Nope. You're simply wrong. It did not change.
Without any critical thinking of your own.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? I simply said Luke needs to fuck off...
that was a nice conversation to follow!
Personally what I have a problem with is the increase from 80 to 100'000 bytes, as the rationale for this was "we will have to increase it anyway probably in the future, so let's just be done with it now". This doesn't seem like a prudent approach to me.
I think limiting OP-return to 10k (or something like that) would put this whole debate to sleep at this point
Yeah you're right I just don't want to believe that
Whatever you said, Bitcoin is money and I will never allow anyone to dirty my money
Too late.
nope
Ordinals, inscriptions.
Only idiots like you continue with those fake news.
But the spammers who exploit those weaknesses are actually scared from policy filters.
Policy filters that work and kept OP_RETURN clean of data bigger than 82 Bytes.
Policy filters that work and kept OP_RETURN clean of data bigger than 82 Bytes.
Aren't you a complete idiot?
Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network.
Cored devs - Bitcoin in 2021 is Money.
Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.
Core devs are compromised. They changed the definition of Bitcoin from being Money to being just distributed network.
Core devs - Bitcoin (in 2021) is Money.
Compromised Core devs - Bitcoin is just peer-to-peer network.
View quoted note →
> fortunately neither do
We'll see. If we get bad content in an op_return, we will know that Core controls bitcoin.
no. BCH blocks are 32 mb right now and blocks are not full.
every maxipad is lying their face off about how difficult it is to run a node with 8 mb blocks, or even full blocks under the status quo. they are larping as rich patricians when they can't shell out for a stick of RAM and a SSD. meanwhile vitalik runs an eth node on a dell laptop. it's not that fucking hard.
you are describing a soft fork with consensus
I am not.
if a majority of hash and/or users are not actively rejecting a soft fork then there is rough consensus…
Does he not describe a majority hash power consensus vs a minority node/user consensus? If the users does not take action, there wont be a chain split. There is no rough consensus, and their wont be a split. Am i missing something?
sorry, ignore what I wrote, I'm retarded.
Discerning truth requires critical thinking
--> "A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain"
If the majority of hash mines, the software chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?
Theoretically: All forks eventually *get resolved* it's a matter of when. As they're being *resolved*, they are _out of consensus_
f-n auto text
*If the majority of hash mines the softfork chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?*
If you're not aware of it, search for mara slipstream. The press release tries to make it sound like the best thing since Bitcoin, but it is created and used to cheat and corrupt Bitcoin.
I know what slipstream is and I don't agree. "the mempool" is a meme and valid transactions categorically do not cheat at anything. anyone can tell transactions to miners by any means they choose, bypassing your raspberry pi computer. it's a free country. and if more people keep adding placebo filters to their relay policy, it will lead to the proliferation of more private mempools. this could cause mining centralization. if you want so badly for this to not happen, relay policy should mirror consensus and nobody would create any private mempools.
Then you better get started.
As long as we agree on the mechanics of soft forks, there’s probably no real need to get into the semantics of a word like “consensus”, but still…
If 40% of users and miners actively reject the soft fork (URSF), you’d still consider that a soft fork with consensus?
