Replies (60)
You know what else would be really bad for Bitcoin? Having gatekeepers to differentiate what is allowed on chain and what is not. Especially fanatical statists taking up theead in this. We need a middle ground.
Just sell already
By gatekeepers do you mean filters?
Please do the work to understand this issue. If you believe that bitcoin is money, then large amounts of arbitrary data storage is not acceptable because it weakens bitcoin as money (because nodes incur the cost of storing the data while miners extract the value of mining it). Saying that all financial transactions are ok, and that attaching large amounts of non-financial data is not ok, is not *censorship* - it’s common sense. Try depositing a check at your bank and attaching a poster size photo and requiring your bank to archive that photo and make it available to everyone forever - no matter what the photo is of. That’s not a monetary use-case, and has no place in the bitcoin ecosystem.
indeed, it'd be a giant single point of failure
I never liked this "central authority" on github keys
(and more with github being owned by microsoft!)
some hope:
ai-agents crafting personal nodes
if a reference code should exist
maybe the place to store it would be in the own chain ?
maybe the it's the only arbitrary data worth to be on chain ?
AI agents that craft personal nodes? How would that be good?
Bitcoin is permissionless. The protocol doesn’t care about your definition of “money.”
If miners include it and users pay for it, it’s valid.
Nodes choose their own policies. That’s not censorship — that’s markets.
#Bitcoin isn’t a bank. It’s a neutral settlement network.
The implied meaning is stronger than “just filters.” It’s about who gets to decide what Bitcoin is for. Filters are coded by a gatekeeper.
I made this chart on why BIP110 is anti-bitcoin. "Spam" was never the debate
The rest of us care about scaling bitcoin, and we are very successful at ensuring that the UTXO set is kept small, and ensuring big miners don't benefit from out-of-band systems
Knots/BIP110 is an attack on Bitcoin. But it's also now a boring distraction, and therefore we'll see more blocks signal for BIP54-Consensus-Cleanup than we do for BIP-110
satsandsports.github.io/BIP110/
Are you really going to fork off? Or do you think this chain will become the main chain?
So you gonna take on one of these fork futures offers, or just shitpost about things you don’t understand for clout?
I think this libertarian view of “permissionless” (without any boundaries whatsoever) is a risk for bitcoin. Yes, the protocol allows it, but that doesn’t make it good for bitcoin, and until Core v30, default node policy discouraged it. We should agree that bitcoin needs to focus on being money and leave the other use-cases to other protocols/platforms. I’m not a fan of BIP-110, but Core really dropped the ball on spam and that’s not good for bitcoin. Are you running a Core v30 node?
Every individual has to make a moral choice. It’s an obligation. If enough people make the right choice everything will be fine. I chose #bitcoin to be money. And I chose #Bip110.
You don’t tell me what to do.
I tried to zap you, Aaron
BIP110 is what scales Bitcoin when it massively reduces the spam.
Bitcoin is money
Thanks :) Not sure what’s up with that, it usually works. (Including earlier today…)
Ah! It worked on my fourth attempt
If miners including it is sufficient for it being ok, that’s ignoring the centralization impact of the externalities they impose on nodes. If miners choose to include even more toxic arbitrary data due to the lax Core v30 filters, or massive amounts of non-financial data (even if it’s not toxic) then fewer people will run nodes, and Bitcoin gets more centralized, which increases the risks of (future) censorship.
There were many red flags and gaslighting coming from core and their backers.
Bitcoin was always more about doing what’s right through technology (separating state and money + empowering individuals) than doing on-chain tricks.
So when these people willfully ignored concerns many users brought up, and still pushed through their venture backed garbage for the sake of being paid rather than doing what was right (pausing/cancelling contentious implementations until rough consensus was achieved), they lost all credibility to me.
We use all kinds of filters for all kinds of spam. Has spam massively reduced anywhere?
Oh the "you are not technical enough to understand the brillians of core devs"
There are a billion technically right decisions that can be made for the direction of Bitcoin. What hodlnaut is arguing is that core are plotting a wrong path. This requires no technical insight to debate.
Spam came with the inscriptions exploit which the compromised Core devs refused to fix.
Before that filters work and transactions were monetary as it can be seen.
Now we have the Core V30 from the compromised Core devs that is an attack on Bitcoin.
BIP110 fixes it.
StackinBeets
Trust is more relevant than ever in Bitcoin. For all non-technical people that can't check the code for themselves, all they can do is listen to people from the core and knots side with an open mind and without prejudice, to look at the actions and history of both sides, and to make a judgement based on that. I want to be on what I think will be the right side of history, and to me it's crystal clear core is the wrong side. That doesn't make me a Luke disciple or a knotzi. For the foreseeable future, knots is just what I see to be the least harmful option.
I'm still on the fence about BIP-110 because I haven't looked properly into it but I'm grateful that it's out there at the very least. We've been passive and compliant for too long. Thank you, fellow Bitcoiners.
View quoted note →
No, I’m not on v30 and I hate junk as much as you do. But don’t kid yourself: v30 is policy, not God’s law — yet letting a self-anointed “legit use-case” committee set defaults can drift into soft censorship. Maybe next illicit use-case would be using Bitcoin for gambling? We have a precedent here.
Core v30 raised OP_RETURN policy to 100k + multiples by default; you can still clamp it back to 83. The real monster is centralizing out-of-band miner pipelines if you try to shun demand at relay level.
idk, just brainstorming
Haven't there been spam on Bitcoin since it's creation? Satoshi "spammed" message in block 1, colored coins and NFT have been thing since 2012 etc.
BIP110 doesn't actually fix anything. It just tries to prevent some people from transacting, even though they're willing to pay the fee.
That itself sounds quite backwards thinking, shouldn't we try to build system that would have less discrimination on who/why/when transactions are happening 🤔
Not 40% of the transactions. Calling " Satoshi "spammed" message in block 1" is stupid. By default Bitcoin Knots allows 42 Bytes OP_RTEURNs and that is fine, a sane default but also gives people the freedom to set whatever they want.
BIP110 fixes the abuse of spam. And of course that spammers and scammers would defend inscriptions, ordinals, NFTs and other scams. They are against BIP110.
Bitcoin is Freedom Money and BIP110 helps exactly that.
"sane default but also gives people the freedom to set whatever they want"
This is good that people can choose, even though it's quite meaningless setting.
There's much more interesting things to look at and configure in bitcoin config, so by default it would be best that there's no limit and if somebody wants to setup some filters for some reason and knows what they're doing, they should be free to do it.
Wrong. OP_RETURN filter at 42 Bytes is good as it keeps peoples own mempool free of spam and those people don't relay spam on Bitcoin Monetary Network.
I think it's somewhat contradicting to say that Bitcoin is freedom money while promoting a change that tries to prevent people from sending valid transactions.
It is not contradictory because Bitcoin is permissionless Monetary Network and no one is preventing people from sending and recieving monetary transactions and that is now proven with real world transactions.
Spam abuses Bitcoin and needs to be filtered out.
Question for the taco plebs: which dev team is more centralized, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots?
View quoted note →Indeed that would be bad.
But you cannot say what transactions every people consider spam. That's why it would be best to include all valid tx's and if wanted, then one can fine tune.
Of course that we know what spam is and we can say which transactions are spam. Just see the screenshots again.
BitcoinIsFuture
Lets see how a monetary transaction looks like and how an OP_RETURN spam that takes 100s to 1000s times more space look like.
I am sure you will notice the difference. Spam is disgusting.
1. This is how a Bitcoin monetary transaction looks like
2. This is how OP_RETURN transaction looks like
and the spam waste of space goes on and on like that
How would you know which are spam, I don't see any flags etc. relating it 🤔
This is what happens when we fight for scraps. I was hoping bull market + increase in transaction volumes would take us out of this madness.
Instead we are heading for a brutal bear market with contentious fork -> chain and community split -> even more drama and selling.
You can't recognize spam?
And it all started with the compromised Core devs releasing Core V30
At that point we didn't even know about their meetings with Epstein and Epstein investing in them ...
It's still weird to observe that there is so much patriotism to be seen in this Nostr bubble 😬
indeed. we need more than bitcoin knots and core. there should be at least one credible third alternative, at minimum, problem is that most of the alternatives are craply written, poorly maintained, and sub par performance.
specifically, btcsuite's btcd is an absolutely appallingly written node. i don't even know what the hell roasbeef is doing these days, there is very likely still bugs that i observed 3 years ago on it, and grandfathered into LND as well, and when i tried to make contributions to improve both btcd and lnd a few years ago, the utter lack of interest in other people contributing was appalling.
Fuck off. Ill decided what's good or bad for my bitcoin.
Run a node and cast your vote
all these current conflicts are downstream of the blocksize war.
the blind trust started then and we should've had two blocksize increases since.
fuck you and your bip110 shit
sovereignty is a practice, not a feature. if we outsource the defense of our principles to a centralized group, we're just recreating the banking system on a different ledger.
Fuck you
Core is not defining bitcoin to be just money. Stupid. I can use bitcoin however j want. Sorry you attached monetary value to it and now your life depends on it. Im not changing for your convenience
the truth hurts 🤷
Being uneducated and illiterate and ignorant will hurt you more than your illusion if truth. Just cause you consider it money does not make it money. Its a protocol you fool
cool.
I am left speechless before your compelling argument 😂
Centralized thinking is the real attack vector. Not governments. Not banks. Complacency.
You can unfortunately use is as a data base duev to core not implementing Lukes patch to to the Taproot bug.
I hope this will change
My node my choice
Same here BIP110
spam was never the debate ?
utxo set small ?
no benefit from oob ?
which btc ry talking about ? 😂
