Thread

The amount of non technical people thinking this is a contentious change is shocking.

Oh so you have to be technical to recognize contention now? GFY

No, you're making a contentious issue when there isn't one to begin with.

my good friend, I find you again, and often I see you get insulted or told to fuck off when I find you lol 😂

Post a dumb take, don't be surprised to get responses telling you it's dumb. I expect no less from my opinions. If I say something stupid, please challenge me on it.

And this is called gaslighting. Kindly GFY, poser.

I'm not gas lighting you. I'm telling you I think you're wrong. If you can't handle opposition and explain your case calmly, then why are you responding? Just keep following your leaders. I love that I'm a poser now. What am I posing as but am not?

Apropos of nothing, poser is such a nostalgic insult.

Fair enough! Ok let me see if I can challenge your take on this, I know I can have a civil dialogue with you 😁 I think that the change can actually be labelled “contentious” not bc of technical aspects, but bc of the response that has caused in the community (at this point with 20% knots is clear that this change has indeed pissed many ppl off). Maybe the other guy meant to say this? I also think the other guy got frustrated when you brought into the conversation the “technical” aspect. I guess it links to the whole argument of “trust the devs is another trust the experts system” Since we are talking I’d like to check this with you: I’m a bit worried bc of the 1000% in op_return space. From 80 to 100’000 bytes it’s a massive jump. I feel like we should be on the side of caution and not increase it so much all at once, better do it gradually. Just feel like the stake are too high and we should be cautious and gradual with changes. What do you think?

I think it should be removed entirely and the half step of the devs in this case has only served to cause a longer tail of outrage. The reason to remove it is because filters are meant to make sure users don't submit unintended transactions. They are not to stop certain transactions from getting on chain. It may be contentious in the sense that the %20 are misled to believe the latter. Ie. That contention is based on a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin and filters operate. It's only contentious because they don't understand. If they did, there wouldn't be any contention. That's what I'm trying to say. But no, the devs had to try to appease the crowd with a half step that didn't help anyone. If they had removed it entirely, we could have moved on from this by now. Hopefully when 30 does come out, and a majority of nodes switch, the knots people may start to understand oh yea... There's no change on transactions after the new update and start to see their fears are unfounded and based on a lie or misunderstanding.

This is a great response and I don't want a short change my response to it. Part of the problem is that the difference between a monetary transaction and spam are arbitrary. The most fair way to let people use Bitcoin is to have the user decide how much they are willing to spend to send their transaction. See to me if it's not monetary then I'm not sure what they're spending on a fee to send the transaction. My argument is the user gets to decide what is and is not monetary to them. One small group of people trying to decide what a monetary transaction is is precisely why Satoshi made Bitcoin. Fee is the mechanism by which spam is prevented. Not filters. But circling back it's not my argument that filters work and having them stops valid transactions. That's not the case. My argument is that filters exist so users can have more control over the performance of their node and prevent themselves from sending unintended transactions. No matter what this filter is set to a node's performance will likely be around the same. No one's going to accidentally submit a transaction with a large OP return. This takes about 250 to 300 lines out of Bitcoin. Removing it settles this whole debacle. Removing it ultimately makes the code base cleaner and more maintainable unless prone to cultural drama like this in the future.

It is a breath of fresh air to see someone honest and not so dogmatic on their reasoning for running knots.b

Likewise man, it’s refreshing to discuss in a mature way with a “pro-core” person 😁 there are seriously unpleasant ppl everywhere! Totally agree with you that user and fees should be the ultimate decider, our best defense are economic incentives and market demand 👍🏼 Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the technical aspects, it does really help to clear things up man. But I also suggest you not to focus all your arguments on technical alone, because at this point there are too many non-tech things which are too important IMO not to take into account: - profit motives incentives are on the side of opening up limits - ⁠Antoine Poisont mentioned in a video that he talked directly with Citrea - ⁠Jameson Loop also benefits from this opening up of limits via his investment in Citrea - ⁠all of a sudden core devs said things like “btc is a database for whatever” and “there are no spam” - ⁠core horrible management of the whole situation, from the initial ban of ppl on GitHub, to the “trust the devs”, to the “if you are not technical you cannot have an opinion on this matter”, to the lack of self-reflection and humbleness - ⁠constant personal attack to the guy (Luke) who made concrete actions to help btc (talking about stratum v2, massive help in helping decentralize mining), rather than taking things as they are for granted and “negotiating” Again, I really hope this is just a horrible managed situation which some of us are not able to easily grasp due to lack of technical knowledge, but the amount of dodgy things and motives going around cannot make us sleep sound here….