Replies (24)
It’s that ‘unspendable’ part that’s been turning around in my brain.
YES 💯
The argument is, as I understand it now:
Core: You can't stop it, let's make it more efficient.
Mechanic: We can stop it imperfectly through Knots + DATUM + Miner co-operation.
Slight correction: you objectively cannot stop data from getting in the chain. You can only make it slightly harder and thus only slightly delay it. That’s all the current transaction relay policy does. You can still submit transactions above the node relay limit directly to mempool.space or miners
Do pruned nodes really play a role in maintaining decentralization?
Good question.
They certainly provide resilience and the more nodes that exist, the more resilient the network becomes.
Those nodes exist across the planet, so it is geographically decentralised.
My issue with knots is the censorship. For me Bitcoin is about freedom, so to censor something is not for me. Core is constantly being tweaked, that doesn't mean we should ignore what's happening and discuss it but when prominent figures say things to influence and not educate, they lose my trust. What little I had. I feel that Ebenezer Loop has something to advertise. His priorities seem self centred and have for a while
I disagree, if all miners agree to not include a transaction or type of transaction in their template, then that transaction never gets included no matter who mines it.
If, however, a miner with enough hash power and incentives includes such transaction once they win a block, it gets included.
Yes, this is a deep question.
We are not moving to Knots because we love it, we are moving to Knots because it isn't core.
Do I have the right to reject cat JPEGs?
Same questions as X or NOSTR and life.
We all look after ourselves first, Lopp is no different, better or worse.
That is I guess at least theoretically possible but objectively not currently happening and miners have every incentive to include them as they can extract extra revenue from the MEV opportunity this presents. In order for that to theoretically happen you have to assume every miner will be economically irrational.
Most miners and thus most hash rate currently accept out of band transactions. There are collective out of band systems like the mempool accelerator and mining pool specific ones such as those by Mara and ViaBTC.
As I said to you yesterday, I think this is a storm in a tea cup
I believe I posted that I hoped you were right.
We also should not root for a world where miners can band together and block transactions as that means uncensorable money is gone, and that’s the whole premise of BTC. If miners hate me for whatever reason and can band together to block my transaction, then BTC has been rendered pointless. This is the very foundation of freedom money.
Agreed this is not currently happening, which is why OCEAN was established to attempt to change that.
In the meantime...
Bitcoin is a consensus network, if we have consensus to ban you, you are banned. 😂
😂
That’s true, but the consensus has always been Bitcoin is freedom money for enemies. Not you get banned as soon as we find your transaction type annoying. 🤷
Agreed 😂
If Bitcoin was made to be money, why is limiting jpegs (for example) censorship? Putting diesel gas in a regular car ruins it. So they made the hole and the gas pump different sizes for each, so you can’t pump diesel into your regular car and destroy it.
I don’t buy the argument of core side.
If you just look back in 2023 they did whatever they can to spam the bitcoin blockchain but the reason these ordinals and other projects by taproot wizards failed was mainly because of filters. It wasn’t cost efficient for them to keep spamming the network and keep bringing on suckers to buy their shit.
So now all these taproot wizards are psyoping us to believe that these filters don’t work, so to make their spam cost effective.
Also Udi has so many times openly said that he would buy bitcoin core devs. I also don’t trust Lopp, dude is still a shitcoiner. Also won’t trust anyone from taproot wizards.
Because you can and it still works.
I'm not advocating anything but you analogy isn't accurate
I’m not one way or the other yet. Yes you can do it but you have to go to extra lengths to make it work because of a limitation. Which goes to the other side, if limitations cause use of spendable transactions, that’s worse then use of unspendable ones (my understanding anyway).
I'm definitely no expert but I'm very wary of people, like Lopp. Not that he should get threatened. He, and other so called OGs, have strayed from the Bitcoin only path. As the saying goes, don't trust...
This is a reason I'm not a fan of pools
