Thread

Indeed, we can definitely go lower than 0.1 sat/vbyte!

I hate how a huge attack vector is treated as a distraction

Jimmy, Lopp already confess, its all about a Citrea use case that nobody ask for.

Great, so no need for L2.

Simple.

Xitrea

Fork

Same shit

Different toilet

Time to UASF

Go home v30, you're drunk.

This is why people consider you a shitcoiner troll

What a worthless reason……… You can’t make this stuff up…….. This is how harm comes to #Bitcoin……..

Is that not possible Jimmy? It is germane to the conversation as a real world possibility……… They had no good reason to do this and in fact wanted to harm the protocol in this manner……. Attack vectors function in this manner…….

Unconfirmed Txs for L2? Name 1 legitimate reason Bitcoin needs this

Because gov can already put CSAM onchain anytime but mining the block themselves. So this supposed attack vector has already been available for more than a decade basically.

1. There is no size of data embedding where use of anything other than OP_RETURN or the witness is preferred. Given that most node policies already allow the relay of arbitrarily large data up to the tx standardness size limits (using multiple P2SH outputs), no size limit on OP_RETURN is compatible with the reasonable policy goal to incentivize all data embedding to use OP_RETURN outputs as *opposed* to anything else. 2. Once the OP_RETURN size limit is removed, the restriction on # of OP_RETURN outputs does not accomplish anything. 3. 0.1 sat / vB was chosen among other reasons, since it was below the feerate observed on the network, and above the estimated bandwidth cost an attacker would pay to consume 1 byte of bandwidth from every node on the network, if you'd like to read more: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/changing-the-minimum-relay-feerate/1886, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106

Now they don't have to mine it, because of Libre Relay and v30

Right, but shutting down v30 won't protect us against this attack, and if anyone is genuinely trying to build defense against this, then making people believe it will is downright counter-productive.

I don't understand the logic behind people that think in absolutes. The ability to do so now takes expertise. Even safes are cracked with expertise, and are not 100% effective against a motivated party. That point is completely irrelevant when asking if something should be allowed by protocol as a standard.

The logic is that, since we're talking about a governmental attack, they can definitely access that expertise, and increasingly so in the future. I'm not saying I support v30 btw, but getting it out of the picture won't protect against said attack. It's a bit like locking your door to prevent the special forces to enter, if you want. Not a reason not to lock your door, but let's not be delusional here.