I seriously doubt many pools are discussing how to limit their revenue. Quite the opposite - they love the recent developments that have boosted fees.

I DID NOT EXPECT A COINJOIN BAN BY OCEAN. WHAT A LET DOWN. DIDNT SEE THAT COMING. THIS MINING POOL PROBLEM IS A HARD ONE.

THERE'S NO WATER LEFT

FUCKED

Maybe not pools exclusively, but someone is paying attention and taking notes.

1/ Censorship resistance is directly dependent on the number of synched nodes that track and validate their own txs 2/ Blockchain bloat is the main hurdle to growing synched nodes from 10,000s PCs to 1,000,000,000s phones ! Every bit/tx counts, therefore it is the opposite: the good actors are the most conservative on tx size limits Miner "Censorship" is trivially overcome with high fees

Yes. And if they are juicing the mempool with garbage ordinals, eventually that ponzi will die out. In the meantime, everyone learns a *little* more about lightning and node configuration. Can’t stop the signal.

Lol. Hashrate will move, regardless. Their may be pain during transition but the net result will be even more decentralized mining as the non-“public” miners move to other locations/pools with better conditions. Either the economics of bitcoin work, or they don’t. They are based on allowing the free market to do its thing. I don’t believe this can be stopped. If authorites squash/capture one market, two free ones will pop up to replace it due to incentives alone. Nah, if there is any brains at all with the authorities, best to keep a quiet eye on it as-is less they force it adapt and decentralize even further. China made a big mistake. I suspect the IS may learn from that.

I'm sorry, should every pool be forced to mine your spam transactions in their blocks? That sounds like a violation of free speech to me.

Hope you’re right. We don’t have a free market in the US and yet the world dumps its capital here all the same because of the incentives at the margins. It’s wise not to underestimate our central planners. While we think they’re schmucks, they’ve not been unsuccessful on a macro level thus far.

I see what you mean. On the other hand, why should Bitcoin Core have a monopoly on the doctrine? I am glad that there are other bitcoin clients with different policies. What has to be clarified is whether Ocean is specifically targeting these coinjoin transactions or just happens to have a lower OP_RETURN limit.

Perhaps because I say what I think rather than conforming to whatever the current popular narrative is; I've been cancelled countless times. Also, I think there's plenty of room for non-Bitcoin crypto networks that offer different utility. I explore many technologies and I don't apologize for it. People tend to form a mental model of me based upon my posts they've seen, then they get upset when I do something that breaks their model. IDK about "good" vs "bad" guy because it's subjective. I consider myself good because I've educated many people and also helped many folks secure their funds. I don't defraud folks - the services I provide are quite transparent, even if some folks disagree with them.

I supported BIP101 which was implemented in XT. You're thinking about a change that deprioritized connections from tor exit nodes to mitigate DoS attacks conducted via tor to fill up connection slots. I was neutral on that one.

Never meet your heroes. 😏

shitcoiner and sellout are not enough?

Yes that was indeed the sus rationale used at the time to attempt to destroy privacy in Bitcoin.

Even better, don’t have heroes. Be your own if anything!

Who? Lopp?

You see it’s not a coinjoin ban. Because op_return is not used in coinjoin tx but rather in tx0(transaction zero), which is not a coinjoin txn! Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners. then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path. Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection. The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.

We have to hit you with semantics because shitcoiners have been fooling people with limited technical knowledge into complacency by using misleading semantics. Study up on mempool policies and why they have been in place since day 1 before you throw around loaded terminology like 'censorship'.

They just happen to have that limit. Some services that rely on OP_RETURN to function can be affected here. But one has to say that relying on being able to inject arbitrary data into your tx is just shitty engineering. Other coin join services don't do this, which is MUCH better for privacy, which is the whole point.

ALL I HEAR IS "I AM FINE WITH BRC-20 SHITCOINERS RIPPING OFF NEWBIES WHILE BLOATING THE TIMECHAIN WITH GARBAGE, MAKING IT LESS DECENTRALISED" DO YOU ALSO LET STRANGERS PEE IN YOUR LIVING ROOM ?

Thanks for clarifying

I get your point. But every tyranny, every empire before them has fallen. I see no reason to believe this one is different. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The idea is now out there. This is why you don’t need to hope in bitcoin, you can *know*. You’re only hope is we get it right the first time, for everyone’s sake. But if we don’t, then we will try again. And again. And again. Entire races have seen generations come and go in pure slavery, and yet we keep gaining ground. Mankind’s instinct and fate is to wrestle with and balance freedom and tyranny.