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 (136)
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.
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
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.
> 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?*
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?
Bitcoin drops 3% in one hour due to OP_RETURN
Bitcoin drops 3% in one hour due to OP_RETURN
Bitcoin drops 3% in one hour due to OP_RETURN
How about pedos controlling Core tho? Don’t quote me on that, it’s their own words.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
It's at 15.4% now, plus 2.5% for 30.2.0. He was not wrong
Did you read any of this? Are you a bot or just retarded?
In the end, things are not binary. Default relay policy matter: entering a deal with a miner to put CP on the chain is a very identifiable way to do something illegal, which is not comfortable for the potential miner and the user that does it. Much easier for bad actors if non identifiable and miner can say not on purpose.
Can someone articulate a reasonable reason why this change in default relay policy was needed? Seriously. This is a change with serious potential risk and consequences. Why the fuck was it needed? Can someone say something more convincing than “fee predictor” or “because we want JPEGs on chain” or “content agnostic”
The use case is money. Why the fuck do we need this change in standard relay policy??
Well fucking said