Thread

Yes! The ultimate consensus is social consensus. We cannot let the culture deteriorate.

Great point! Bitcoin is not about technical issues, it’s about real world flesh and blood issues. This is about socioeconomics, and ideology. It is not about optimizing code.

Bitcoin is a culture. One that opposes fiat culture in its essence. It’s pertinent that we uphold the values and principles bitcoin was founded on and has developed organically. I think we’re seeing the organic correction to venturing away from the core culture now.

But muh use cases! What if someone wants to build an open source decentralized AWS on top of Bitcoin?! Oh, and a Solana server that runs on that.. Who are we to say Bitcoin isn't an immutable cloud services platform?! I checked Core's github and it says "Bitcoin Core connects to the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network.." Nothing about being magic internet money. What a ridiculous idea to say that Bitcoin isn't whatever anyone wants it to be. This is 2025 and we're redefining everything to mean nothing. 🤡🌍

You can't enforce 'spam is illegitimate'. You can try removing some types you don't particularly like, but it's naive to assume doing that will actually make Bitcoin more monetary. And what if it doesn't? What if you are not satisfied after fork #1? What if the spammers whom you stopped to spam look for the next way? How many spam forks are needed when enough is enough and realize people who want to waste money trolling (or launching scams) on the global permissionless decentralized monetary network will always be able to do so.

> You can't enforce 'spam is illegitimate' I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition: it's okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections Got a problem with that? Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections.

We don't need to rehash the "what is SPAM" esoterica. We can say non-monetary data has no place here. Which is what BIP444 does. The Bitcoin network will turn into Ethereum if we continue down the current path. If that's what you actually want, just use Ethereum. Otherwise, fork off.

That's an odd use of 'moral objection' Having moral objections to spam Tx's and therefore changing consensus to remove some certain types then why not do this for Txs that are of very bad monetary nature?

Before I met Susan, my trading journey was full of confusion, losses, and frustration. I didn’t understand the market, I had no proper strategy, and I lacked the confidence to make the right decisions. But with Susan’s knowledge, patience, and guidance, everything changed. She didn’t just show me how to trade—she taught me how to understand the market, control my emotions, and grow with discipline. Today, I am the trader I am because of Susan. Her skills and mentorship shaped my success and completely transformed my financial path. Susan is a highly skilled trader recognized for her outstanding performance in cryptocurrency, forex, and digital asset markets. With years of experience, she has developed deep knowledge of technical and fundamental analysis, allowing her to identify profitable opportunities and manage risk with precision. As a teacher, Susan is dedicated to educating new and growing traders. She focuses on real skills: understanding market psychology, building consistent strategies, and mastering risk management. She doesn’t just give signals—she teaches traders how to become independent, confident, and successful in the market. Her professionalism, transparency, and patience set her apart. Susan believes that true trading success comes from discipline, knowledge, and a long-term mindset—not luck. Her mission is to help others build sustainable wealth and financial freedom through responsible trading. 📩 Contact Susan Zangi: 5091878735 Line: https://line.me/ti/p/8dmqYJw8mb Gmail: mgement907@gmail.com

Before I met Susan, my trading journey was full of confusion, losses, and frustration. I didn’t understand the market, I had no proper strategy, and I lacked the confidence to make the right decisions. But with Susan’s knowledge, patience, and guidance, everything changed. She didn’t just show me how to trade—she taught me how to understand the market, control my emotions, and grow with discipline. Today, I am the trader I am because of Susan. Her skills and mentorship shaped my success and completely transformed my financial path. Susan is a highly skilled trader recognized for her outstanding performance in cryptocurrency, forex, and digital asset markets. With years of experience, she has developed deep knowledge of technical and fundamental analysis, allowing her to identify profitable opportunities and manage risk with precision. As a teacher, Susan is dedicated to educating new and growing traders. She focuses on real skills: understanding market psychology, building consistent strategies, and mastering risk management. She doesn’t just give signals—she teaches traders how to become independent, confident, and successful in the market. Her professionalism, transparency, and patience set her apart. Susan believes that true trading success comes from discipline, knowledge, and a long-term mindset—not luck. Her mission is to help others build sustainable wealth and financial freedom through responsible trading. 📩 Contact Susan Zangi: 5091878735 Line: https://line.me/ti/p/8dmqYJw8mb Gmail: mgement907@gmail.com

Before I met Susan, my trading journey was full of confusion, losses, and frustration. I didn’t understand the market, I had no proper strategy, and I lacked the confidence to make the right decisions. But with Susan’s knowledge, patience, and guidance, everything changed. She didn’t just show me how to trade—she taught me how to understand the market, control my emotions, and grow with discipline. Today, I am the trader I am because of Susan. Her skills and mentorship shaped my success and completely transformed my financial path. Susan is a highly skilled trader recognized for her outstanding performance in cryptocurrency, forex, and digital asset markets. With years of experience, she has developed deep knowledge of technical and fundamental analysis, allowing her to identify profitable opportunities and manage risk with precision. As a teacher, Susan is dedicated to educating new and growing traders. She focuses on real skills: understanding market psychology, building consistent strategies, and mastering risk management. She doesn’t just give signals—she teaches traders how to become independent, confident, and successful in the market. Her professionalism, transparency, and patience set her apart. Susan believes that true trading success comes from discipline, knowledge, and a long-term mindset—not luck. Her mission is to help others build sustainable wealth and financial freedom through responsible trading. 📩 Contact Susan Zangi: 5091878735 Line: https://line.me/ti/p/8dmqYJw8mb Gmail: mgement907@gmail.com

No it doesn't, stamps are still allowed last time I checked (it's been a while). BIP444 does not stop non-monetary data either way.. Bitcoin is fuck you money So fuck you :) But I do think getting angry at people using Bitcoin a way you don't like will stop them

I think it is okay to do this for Txs that are of a bad monetary nature For example, if someone creates coins outside of the mining protocol, I think it is okay to burn the newly created coins and block such a tx from happening again I also think that if someone creates a spam tx, it is okay to make their outputs unspendable and bloc such a tx from happening again But that's what I think. What do *you* think?

You mean the 40B of OO_RETURN data? Fuck You You Fucking Fuck 😂 Nobody's amgry here. I'm just laughing at all you closet .eth heads cosplaying as Bitcoiners. 🤣

No this is just wrong. Bitcoin would be nothing if it doesn't enforce two of the three features you mentioned... Regardless whether or not money was involved. If it didn't enforced total ordering (no double spending) it wouldn't be a useful data base at all, and if it didn't use proof of work it wouldn't have been any different than a database using permissioned BFT. The 21 limit is the only value judgement, but arguably it was necessary for bootstrapping meme-wise. But the other two aren't value judgements they are the bare minimum features to justify the existence of this system at all

(1) Justifying the existence of a system sounds like a value judgment (2) There are useful databases that allow for reprdering data. The stated motivation for doublespend prevention is not because it is "technically necessary" (I dont think it is) but rather to prevent fraud, which is itself a form of "morality policing" (3) The stated motivation for proof of work is to incentivize honesty, not to ensure the system is different from other BFT databases. Other BFT systems are permissioned. But one of the big problems with a permissioned monetary system is not technical but rather moral: dishonest parties might gain control of the system and use their power to allow some people to doublespend, i.e. to enable fraud. Having a pernissionless Proof of Work model incentivizes them to be honest instead. The choice to forego the permissioned route was not technically necessary (orher such systems ARE permissioned). It was a choice explicitly based on morality.

💯 Though, I'm not at all convinced we're anywhere near having such a consensus; and, it feels like proposed efforts to fork regardless of consensus would just end up harming everyone.

I oppose bip110 for that very reason, alongside some objections to how it handles OP_IF. But in this thread I am not trying to convince people to support bip110; I'm only trying to convince others to stop saying "BuT yOu'Re TrYiNg To EnFoRcE yOuR mOrAlItY" as if that's a no-no in bitcoin instead of a large part of why it exists.

I am interested in understanding what you are proposing. Assuming it goes through and all somehow agree on what's moral, however difficult that is, what if the 'consensus-driven moral' becomes immoral? Are morals objective in this proposal?

> Are morals objective in this proposal? As objective as the other morals enforced in the consensus rules, such as the anti-doublespend rule, the supply cap, and the proof of work requirement To me, asking "What if the spam limits lose consensus in the future" is similar to asking "What if the 21 million cap loses consensus in the future"? I think that would be a bad thing, and I would advocate for restoring it

You are stretching the definition so hard they are no longer useful or intelligible. Almost everywhere in distributed systems the word "honest" and "dishonest" merely means that you aren't trying to fake something, may it be the state, the history or Sybil etc.. These are not moral judgements, no one is calling the cheaters bad Christians or sinners or pedos or whatever nonsense knotzis are saying, in fact they are usually called adversaries. Moreover no one following the spec is ever called dishonest, people usually just focus on the spec being weak. Even if none of the 3 things you listed are not necessary to have Bitcoin, which would be an absurd statement, that doesn't make them moral judgements... That at most make them objective specification of the goal, by specification I mean narrowing. Now if Knotzis drop the morality bullshit and discuss narrowing the definition of Bitcoin from what is to what they want it to be, fine they are welcome, but they know they can't actually make any technical specification that is implementable so they argue nonsense instead. I actually want them to fork to see if they ever manage to define a consensus narrower than Bitcoin current consensus that doesn't leak left and right while remaining usable. I am also not sure why are you invested in calling things that are so technical that you can write them as code morality... Who benefits from that muddling? There is a centuries of mortality discourse that basically prove that morality is the domain of the hand wavy subjectiv stuff ... How can that be consensus software??

More rambling, specious, drivil from the knots camp. Sad!

More insults and ad hominems from the core camp. Sad! But typical. When you have no arguments, use insults, eh?

More halfbaked goalpost moving.

Um are you saying the technical specifications such as the 21 million limit are moral arguments? You must stop and listen to yourself.

No, I'm saying some of the technical specs, including the 21 million limit, exist to enforce an anti-inflationary system of monetary morals. Some people on the Core side argue that bitcoin should not block transactions if the reason for doing so is moral; if they were right, the 21 million limit should be dropped, because it exists to block inflationary transactions for moral reasons. Inflation is frequently used by governments to effectively steal from their populace by printing money without honest work, and that is bad, so such transactions are not allowed in bitcoin.

"Anti-inflationary system of monetary morals". I'm not sure what that means but it sounds made up and nebulous. Bitcoin is decentralized, therefore It needs to be anti fragile. The technical specifications are not moral, they are designed to make Bitcoin difficult, if not impossible to shut down. An anti fragile network (especially(!) a monitary network) needs to be free of morality judgements. In other words Bitcoin works because it incentives people to act in their own self interest. If there was a magic internet money that required all its users to behave "morally" it would fail immediately, and likewise if there is a protocol that must have some gatekeepers to decide what is right or wrong it would also fail. Se also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Thanks for sharing. I am not sure that double-spending, proof-of-work and supply cap have any morality in them. The first two are technical and the third is arbitrary. The supply cap just needs to be there for bitcoin to work and is not really set in stone. It's difficult for the whole network to agree that something is spam on the spot. Email spam filters work sometime and do not work some other times. You can then define categories for what's spam but that would be your definition of right and wrong. You may change your mind later, people can agree with you or not, people can settle on the exact opposite, etc. A technical definition of "spam" would be easier to incorporate in the network, I reckon. For changing the supply cap, I reckon that if the door is open for it, it will be determined by whichever group having more control on the network, coins and/or mining power. A more civilised way would be divergent consensus discussions followed by one or more groups forking. I am not saying this is right or wrong. I can see your point but I hardly think that the network allows for it. Thanks for the stimulating thought.

Retard alert 🚨

Dude, you are reaching hard. Fraud, inflation and honesty in the context of Bitcoin have absolutely nothing to do with morality. The only word in that list that could even possibly be misconstrued as moralistic is "honesty" but the way Satoshi used it was in a game theory perspective.

Scrotus spammer is a complete clown and a retard 🤡🤡🤡

think again nostr:nevent1qqsdx8tyeqgvee6gzkt7nwgpf778a38prlgrq0z79ecyr793tgdq4xsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wshswkuk90

All of the ones Satoshi added are definitive, there is no question around 21 million or what constitutes proof of work. "Spam" however is defined differently by everyone. This is why it won't work.

Are you saying it's possible to construe "fraud" as if it was a non-moral term? How so? In what sense is fraud ever not a moral thing (specifically, a very immoral thing)?

I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition: it's sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections Got a problem with that? Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections. So what do *you* think? Is it sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections?

Frame failure; Miners can do whatever for whatever reason, the whole crux IS the practical, i.e. some other miner will what other miners won't, which is the whole premisse of Bitcoin's censorship resistance. You might have thought framing it morally was cute or whatever, but its all practical; also the reason why i thought the whole debate was retarded from the get-go, and amazed it even escalated as it did. Whatever my dude, even changing consensus rules is a practical matter, so good luck with that, anything else is frankly just masturbation.

> Miners can do whatever for whatever reason Can they create more than 21 million bitcoins? No? Then they can't "do whatever for whatever reason." The consensus rules stop them. So node runners can modify their behavior by changing the consensus rules. > You might have thought framing it morally was cute or whatever, but its all practical Are you saying the consensus rules I listed are not there for moral reasons? If so, then why are they there? Why is there an anti-doublespend rule except to protect against fraud?

Spammer? That's funny, Ive never spammed before iny life. In fact, I don't even know how! 🤌

👍

💯 moral relativism is an epistemological mental defect. Unfortunately, it turns all reason into rationalization... So reasoning them out of it nearly impossible.

No I am in absolute agreement that you can block whatever transactions you want for any reason with your own node.

However the point about making Bitcoin more moral with blocking "spam" has no basis because there is no consistent definition of what constitutes a spam transaction. Is it more moral to block a transaction containing the original version of George Orewells 1984 amidst attempts to rewrite it? The point of Bitcoin is to maintain and enforce the truth and not to take a position on morality

If someone is going to pay a terrorist to detonate a bomb with an onchain transaction do you try to prevent that transaction from being mined? Or do you persue an avenue of terrorism prevention off-chain?

I'm saying you are overlaying your moralistic viewpoint and assigning words to something unrelated. Nowhere did the white paper mention the word "fraud". Satoshi’s purpose in preventing double spending was to make purely peer-to-peer electronic cash possible without trusting a central authority. If you want to call double spending "fraud" that's fine but there is nothing moral about it. You could as easily just call it theft if done intentionally. In order for a permissionless peer-to-peer payment system to operate there needs to be mechanisms in place to prevent it. At no point is it necessary to bring feels into it.

yo, double-spends are literally a protocol breach—no feels required. the code just says “same input twice? reject.” moral labels are a human after-party.

> Nowhere did the white paper mention the word "fraud" It uses it three times

But why is that rule there in the first place? Answer: for moral reasons -- because doublespending enables fraud