Now is a good time to show your support for Core.
Login to reply
Replies (129)
Core went rouge, these guys are kids. Get off my lawn. Moved to Knots.
I'm still a nubee. I don't know what core and knots are?
The interesting thing is, there are prudent trustworthy people on both sides.. so I'm not sure if it's worth the time.
No thanks
Blessed be the Nostrian ( nostr people)
Running Core
#freesamourai
They showed no respect and so much ignorance whenever Luke speaks
Not April’s fool day
How ?
They did a good job for years ? yes
We have to thanks them ? yes
They have to continue ? yes
They have to reply any concern ? yes
They are not employees in a company with clear guidelines.
But what has never changed is the transparency needed to explain things to all the bitcoin community.
This drama have shown there is, in fact, a bottleneck in the bitcoin network : the core devs.
They use centralized tools (GIT, website).
They can decide to push the button "merge" or not.
Any other actors of the bitcoin network have a diluted power, but for devs it is one centralized power.
Yes it have worked for years like this.
And i will use they argue when they say #bitcoin have to fit the current need and be improve to not die. The core team too.
Because bitcoin is not an experiment anymore, and "easy" pressure whatever they come from (big company, states...) and whatever they are (interest conflict, attacks, backdoors...), could have a HUGE consequence on the blockchain.
So, yes, i support Core, for the job they have done, for the explanations they have given, AND for the necessary improvement they will have to do
Now that they know the community is huge, majority will have to be gain by argues and not by kid-fighting words.
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpuwfps43jq42f2tal8mzu70lu7a056y64hnrrlg5nl5thy7yumr4qqstcxt30q6h956uhzwpyaw8xa3t585gqpt06w5vztmrjejaksmjprsvhf2gp
Hope they will learned a lesson
Ahh. Woke up choosing to stir the pot eh?
I am supporting core, by not allowing nonsense to rule the day
Except it is ideological because it sets Bitcoin culture. Core needed to be reminded they don’t control Bitcoin.
Embarrassing for them to forget that
Because more donations from scummy companies that way.
Like good npc sheep
Silly
Fucking sellouts.
Core devs trying to co-opt bitcoin for a cash grab.
🧡👊🏻🍻
I will not support degrading the monetary use case.
That’s nonsense.
They never claimed that.
This is all a bunch of drama queens trying to stir the pot.
Yes they did when they decided not to filter obvious spam and now they want to set defaults to allow more spam in op_return.
Filtering doesn’t do anything, whatsoever. Those transactions still are mined into the blockchain.
The only thing years of following bitcoin related forums, (first bitcointalk.org then to r/bitcoin then to twitter and now nostr) is that there’s always a fucken drama about some bullshit.
It’s core’s fault since they are the ones refusing to fix the real problem and instead potentially make it worse.
Why weren’t they concerned about “utxo bloat” for the last two years?
So far I am not at all reassured that they do not have other motives
You are true, because they have found this feature useful, to extend usage of this blockchain.
Now it is more clear for them that a lot of people don't want shit on the blockchain.
So it is a more sane situation.
If now that things are clearer they go throw, they know they will lost a lot of node, and it could be a problem.
So a half-middle solution will have to be found.
Fuk. Core
Honestly, nubees shouldn't worry about this core/knots drama. Even most people who have been around awhile shouldn't worry about it.
Bitcoin core development happens when a bunch of individualist, highly opinionated technical people collaborate. It's a bumpy process. It's currently going fine. Stay humble and stack sats.
(But if you want to dive in and learn: Bitcoin Core is the original open source software project that is "Bitcoin." Bitcoin Knots is a modification of Core that has different mempool (new transaction queue) policy, because there is disagreement about what the mempool policy should be. The most critical part of the software, the consensus code, is the same between the two. This mempool debate has long-term ramifications and it's connected to many other debates about the software, but it's nothing for nubees to be concerned about.)
Are you KNOTS???
Why?
Do dust filters work?
I updated right away. I think I've finally arrived in the "nobody understands consensus" part of my technical bitcoin journey.
Sounds familiar. Trust the experts, right?
Whaaaa. I don't know about that. I'm not a technical guy but I do get strong gut feelings about people when they speak. I hope this is a joke.
Sure
If possible 🫣
🤷♂️🤣 yes
I see a lot more people who's opinions I respect supporting core, and a lot of influencoors I don't respect making baseless claims about core devs being compromised. I support the core devs, though I'll probably run v29 for awhile anyway.
Which Core dev is your favorite?
I don't trust. I verify
A totally useless and ineffective virtue signal.
I assume you’re referring to network level dust filters. Not wallet level.
Honestly, no. If they pay a competitive fee, they’ll be included in a block.
How would one verify the best choice between knots and core?
The same way someone verifies the best choice between bitcoin and the dollar.
By realizing you understand a complex truth that most people don't think about.
No thanks, I don't have a vagina
Core isn't compromised isn't really much of an endorsement
what should we be concerned about?
🤙🏻
That's such a well developed and convincing argument.
People who dislike core like to say "fuck" a lot and make ad hominem attacks. Doesn't really help their cause.
Nothing really. There's just a bunch of retards who want to fight over little things.
The discourse today seems to largely be focused on that. The best evidence anyone seems to have is that they are doing something they don't like so they must have been paid off.
I would say if they haven't been paid, they're idiots. I can at least respect the hustle if they have been paid off.
I think most of them got into being a Core dev because they have a passion for Bitcoin. It is a volunteer position. They get some money from donations and grants but are not bound by any contracts. This sounds to me like the type of people we want working on Bitcoin. Independent freedom-minded coders that do what they do for the good of the network.
People are accusing them of having been influenced by some huge payout from a special interest with no evidence. If that were true that would be very concerning and all the hate being directed their way would be justified, but if it's not true we are dragging good people through the mud unjustly.
I'm just trying to get people to take a step back and take a look at this objectively. They all likely hold a decent amount of Bitcoin themselves, so why would they burn down the network if they have a large stake in its success? If we drive them away with accusations, what happens with the hole in development that creates?
I've seen many of them trying to explain their reasoning in good faith. They seem mostly united in their position on this matter. Did every single one of them get co-opted by whatever boogieman (Citrea, the CIA?) people are afraid of? Not one of them spoke out to the community when approached with a pile of cash in exchange for destroying Bitcoin?
We really need to get back to discussing this change on the merits and stop with the character assassination attempts is all I'm saying.
The heat death of the universe
Ok, let me make something clear. Whether or not they are bribed is irrelevant. What is relevant is they are merging PRs most Bitcoiners don't want. Lying about it. And dismissing legitimate criticism. I see no evidence that they are freedom minded. Culturally they are out of touch with most Bitcoiners who couldn't give 2 shits about JPEGs or BRC tokens. They nuked their own reputation. I hope they at least got paid for it
Thanks for being clear (not being sarcastic). The change hasn't been merged yet though. What have they lied about?
Key word being yet. This is already dishonest behavior. They have every intention of eliminating node sovereignty when it comes to setting the OP_RETURN limit. They are pretending like they learned their lesson. 1. They haven't 2. Even if they have, it's too late
I don’t negotiate with terrorists
Core is a project. It's a particular (the original/reference) implementation of Bitcoin components. There are devs that work on it.
"Support for Core" sounds weird. This is not team sports. Unlike bitcoin itself, the implementation and devs that work on it are not "the solution" to money.
It's really important that we are verbal when there are decisions we don't agree with or make us comfortable. This is not about feelings and supporting people. This is about opting in/out of (voting for) changes.
The devs and others involved with pushing that PR were sketchy. The follow-ups were arrogant and dismissive. It's obvious that people will lose confidence in that. And it's really good to see that people have shown they won't just accept every change as gospel.
We want a better money. That's it. The core impl. and all the devs that have worked on it up until now have done a great job, and there have been many arguments along the way. It's important. It's good for bitcoin. But we need humility, transparency and better communication if it's going to continue to be the primary impl. that everyone uses.
finally someone has summarized succinctly!
drama kings
Until it happens it hasn't happened and is not guaranteed. For what it's worth I think they really fucked up how they approached this. They should have given nodes the choice to adjust their own filters while keeping the default as is, and campaigned with the community to voluntarily lift their filters. They're devs though, so their approach to problems is code, not PR. They already pulled Peter Todd's version that doesn't allow adjustments, so that's progress.
sometimes you don't have choice if you want a solution.
here the solution can't be a war or a chain explosion because some are for and some are against, even in the node owners.
but everyone want the bitcoin blockchain to survive...
true but you're still a cunt somehow.
It survives by pushing mining decentralization, not encouraging shitcoiners
There are two different things to consider here:
1. Whether to support the PR or oppose the PR
2. *When* to show such support / opposition
Core devs need to answer valid technical and economic concerns that have been raised (and disregard the other noise) to convince those of us who are hesitant to see our mempool include and propagate non-monetary data. The answers should consider a dynamic feedback loop system with multiple players with different incentives and have multiple “rounds” to play and respond in this “game” (it’s not a game but it does follow game theory).
The first three questions I have are:
1. Does the PR strengthen the monetary nature of the Bitcoin network? And if so, how so?
2. Does the PR lead to more or less decentralisation of the Bitcoin network? And if so, how?
3. Are there alternatives that better address #1 and #2? For example, working to decentralise mining &/or incentivising mining towards more monetary transactions and away from non-monetary transactions?
Nope. Run knots
The entire premise of the podcast is wrong.
There is no “spam issue.”
If a transaction is valid, it’s valid. It’s that simple.
Your financial transaction has to compete for block space against JPEGs. Accept that and move on.
1. Doesn't directly strengthen or weaken.
2. Less, gives people embedding data in fake outputs the alternative to do so in an output that does is not stored in the UTXO set, potentially reducing pressure on its growth, which has an effect on the hardware required to run nodes in the decades to come. Keeps mining template providers competitive with each other, which benefits small-scale miners.
3. Yes, work on stratumv2, utreexo, swift sync. All of them are worked on simultaneously too. Adding more avenues for detecting data in transactions is not actively pursued. Many think that is a futile exercise.
Then this have to be done.
Even if you need trustable devs to do it the good way to make it happen ?
How can you trust any devs for that ?
How can you said an "new" dev is not here to do a fork or destroy the blockchain ?
It seems public code is not enough for long term vision of what is bitcoin's blockchain and what it have to be used for.
That's why the more devs coding and checking code they are, the better future will be.
And what are those fees compared to the median?
It eventually converges to the same as the mempool . OOB infrastructure will be rapidly commoditized the more common filtering becomes.
So, not a deterrent to “spam.”
Compare the tradeoffs of each implementation.
I bet you 500k sats i can do 10 transactions above the dust limit for cheaper than you can 10 below the dust limit. Do you want to take the bet?
Bitcoin Audible • Read_881 - The Problem is Deeper Than Spam • Listen on Fountain
What if the real issue is actually much deeper than how to deal with spam? Everyone is arguing about mempool settings, who gets to decide the polic...
The issue is mining centralization which seems to fly right over your PhD
How do we truly understand the trade offs if we are quite ignorant to how something, that is very complicated, works?
"long term health of Bitcoin" is what every one want, except the fiat system and peoples that have too much interest in it.
I don’t know that or trust that. Just because someone talks about Bitcoin you trust them? No I don’t think so.
The network is adversarial and I can only judge peers by their actions.
It is true actions speak louder.
That's why core action "PR merge" will soon be watch by everyone.
They have closed Todd’s PR and they are now pleading and whining trying to get a different PR pushed through that changes the defaults anyway.
Now they have the attention of all nodes owners, so they will have to be careful or they could take a wall.
And i am sure they know that.
Future will said if they are still blind or not.
We’re not fully ignorant of it. It’s basically all game theory.
That’s not the point. Conditions today are not necessarily how they will always be.
It absolutely is the point. There is a 100% chance you would lose our bet. Which means filters work. And you are changing tje subject because you are wrong.
No, you’re missing the point.
As filtering becomes increasingly common, more and more transactions will go out of band.
So what do mining pools do? They’ll invest in building private transaction rails, and it becomes commoditized over time, so prices will plummet, long term. So there’s no deterrent to what you consider “spam.”
And now the public mempool is dead, fee estimation is basically impossible, and people submit their transactions (even financial-only transactions) directly to miners instead of using the mempool.
Filtering WORSENS mining centralization. That’s what you’re not getting.
If we are on that path then the solution is to beat miners back into submission. Not reward them for destroying bitcoin as money.
I appreciate your perspective but the Unique Value Proposition of Bitcoin as money is worth defending. Letting retards litter it with jpegs is a threat to that.
Bitcoin doesn’t work because of morals or ideology, it works because of game theory and tradeoffs.
This is the wrong solution. What we should be working on is mining decentralization. Core should make it simple for hashers to run their own node.
Core’s “solution” here is to give up and just accept that 4-5 mining pool operators control Bitcoin
Fuck that
European Bitcoiners
LOPP_RETURN Wars: The problem is deeper than spam filters, Stratum v1 needs to die
It's an open secret that one of Bitcoin's pillars never worked as Satoshi predicted at the time he designed Bitcoin. It faltered even before Bitcoi...
You are an idiot if you think “fee estimation is dead”
Satoshi said:
“As long as the honest nodes have more CPU power than hackers, the system will stay secure and be able to reject fraud.”
What does that mean?
Do you think bitcoin’s success is inevitable? Nothing can stop it?
I think something can stop it: the apathy and weakness of the users.
At the peak of the ordinals spikes I ran several feerate comparisons on filtered and unfiltered.
I detected no statistically significant variation in feerates. All of them either were sufficient to get into the new block, or both standard and filtered estimates were wrong due to a sudden spike in demand.
Also fee estimation is always an *estimate* ?!
I mean, there is no absolute prediction possible.
Anyone can always start submitting mass transactions with high fees right away after you publish something.
Seems such a collectivist idea, mempool predictions should be perfect. Like WTF even is that vibe man
That is naive.
The idealogy and commitment from the users is part of the Game Theory.
No, that’s stupid. What separates bitcoin from other failed prior attempts at any electronic currency was that’s Satoshi nailed game theory. The incentives align properly.
Filtering valid transactions is not incentive-compatible with bitcoin, and is a harmful effort.
Like I already explained to you, it WORSENS mining centralization.
What can stop it is moronic bitcoiners like the filter bros pushing changes that are harmful, because they’re too arrogant.
The more deviance between the mempool and the actual blocks, the worse fee estimates become.
Satoshi did not foresee mining pools
If core decides to merge the OP_RETURN data limit, I won't update to any new version of core with this default implemented.
Just think about what use cases coule and which most probably will emerge.
As an example you can broadcast data through the mempool without paying for the transmitted data by RBF'ing the tx before the tx hit's the first confirmation and replace it as long as it doesn't get that much sats/vb to be confirmed. This lowers the relative fee for any further RBF (with new data included and distributed) DRAMATICALLY and will create incentives for mempool only use cases which just consume node bandwith which isn't even paid for to the miners. Sounds like siphoning the avaiable bandwith of node runners for the distribution of data. I won't give my node ressources in support of creating and maintaining a relative RBF sats/vb market.
h/t @OceanSlim
View quoted note →
You point being?
Your argument is invalid.
Do you always hide between cryptic statements instead of explaining your point clearly and directly?
Buddy, I’ve already listens to Mechanic, Luke, Guy Swann, Chris Guida, and others.
Pro-filter Bitcoiners simply have bad arguments. It fundamentally comes down to maxi virtue signaling: a constant struggle to prove you’re “pure” and hate shitcoins.
There’s a reason why the majority of Core devs- the people who actually work with the code and help shape it, not just a bunch of podcasters and influencers- support removing the filters. It doesn’t make sense to keep or expand them.
And what reason is that pray tell?
“mempool consistency” ? Not going to happen even with loosened rules
Mining centralization? Not going to be improved.
?
You say there is no good reason to keep things as-is. The burden of proof is on you to show why the change is necessary, and you have to prove it to users- not devs.
If you guys are going to Knots… no, Core users don’t need to justify anything to you.
You guys are (ironically) spamming the Bitcoin Core GitHub with activism and ad hominems.
So you have zero argument.
No, we’re the only ones with a coherent argument, and aren’t just virtue signaling for maxi popularity points like you.
What is the coherent argument other than the gaslighting addressed below:
- "if a message is valid wrt a protocol it can't be spam" (laugh in SMTP)
- "if a message entailed any cost to send once it can't be spam" (laugh in call-center setup investment)
- "spam isn't even possible to define in the first place" (laugh in 40 years of common sense)
- "refusing to download and relay some information to/from your node is censorship thus against Bitcoin ethos" (laugh in consensus rules)
- "Bitcoin Core never used mempool policies to filter unwanted transactions" (laugh in about 12 years of Core history starting from Satoshi)
- "Mempool filters never managed to increase the cost of spam" (laugh in logical consistency with the statement below)
- "By incentivizing OoB payments or UTxOset bloat, mempool filters are actually harming the network" (laugh in logical consistency with the statement above)
- "Bitcoin Core developers are always necessarily well-meaning and questioning that is in itself evil" (laugh in adversarial thinking)
- "Whoever doesn't unconditionally agree with all the statement above must necessarily be an ignorant noob misled by evil Twitter influencers"
?
Wow, that’s a lot of non-sequiters and straw men arguments you came up with there.
You have yet to state any argument in favor of removing op_return limits except for your sheep herd follow the experts muck
I did, but you have trouble accepting uncomfortable truths.
There is no rational cost benefit analysis where the benefits of filters outweighs the costs.
They accomplish nothing, and they numerous unintended consequences.
All you have stated in this thread are negative arguments “countering” my statements.
The problem in structure is that you are proposing a change and have added nothing supporting or outlining any benefits of this change.
Name one
Your side literally says “fix the filters.”
Not “keep filters the same.”
You are pushing changes as well, hence the push to switch to Knots, where Luke is in solo control.
Mining centralization
Ok thanks. Now my question is if mining centralization is a priority, why does core not provide a template by default? The miners out on gas fields aren’t technical people, they need an easy option to install a node and mine to ocean or solo using a pre-rolled start9 or umbrel running core.
I don’t see how “discouraging” out of band transactions is going to do anything to help small to mid-size miners run their own nodes instead of hashing for super-pools.
That is a separate argument. If the original wave of inscriptions were filtered with Luke’s PR we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. Mara caught on to the so called “economic incentive” only a year after the initial wave and passive encouragement.
But perhaps we can use the focus on nodes and software policies for positive changes and a more engaged user-base of Bitcoin.
I will simply reply by saying that:
- The amount of nonstandard transactions have been extremely minor
- Until the recent debate, no one used large OP_RETURNs, mostly fueled by the debate itself (and no serious usage still!)
- There are very few outputs below the dust limit
Skip to end for op_return statement.
Sorry for Twitter link but it works on private browser or make sure you drop the cookies
https://x.com/BullBitcoin_/status/1924489133285691420/
None of those facts contradict that this PR was overall a good change. Maybe it’s not an earth-shattering improvement, but even a 0.0001% improvement is a step in the right direction.
The attacks on Bitcoin Core and push to move to knots is a bunch of ideological zealots that can’t accept that people may use bitcoin in ways they don’t approve of.
I don’t believe in helping shitcoiners.
That’s the difference.
I cannot see how this PR has increased or decreased codebase maintainability, or has benefitted the economic majority
Does removing a blindfold help you see? That’s all a filter does.
It’s not “helping shitcoiners.” And that demonstrates the problem with your mentality: you care more about being a pure maxi than doing stuff that makes sense.
Filters make bitcoin worse, even for people that don’t shitcoin at all. You’re just wearing a blindfold and maintaining a mempool that doesn’t reflect actual blocks. Not to mention worsening mining centralization.