This "OP_RETURN war" reeks like manufactured drama, artificially boosted by an X-algorithm optimized for outrage.
Makes me wonder to what extent the block size wars were the same thing...
Login to reply
Replies (120)
It was without a doubt an orchestrated attack by the big blockers, trying to make a quick buck, disguised as a concern about children in Africa.
Interesting.. do share more thoughts on this as you can please Aaron
The narrative of that book made no sense to me. “The users won”. Okay… what’s a user? Everyone (including Coinbase, Kraken, Bitpay) literally realized bigger blocks was a dumb idea, acted in their own economic self interest, and moved on. The only person left whining was Jihan Wu who didn’t give a shit about block size but just wanted to keep the ASICBoost edge.
Core is making a contentious and extreme change to default policy.
Knots, along with every single node on previous versions- disagree.
But at your level you should remember to always:
Block size wars were mainly BitcoinTalk Redit and blogs. Mosltly long format, no algo, no podcasters (probably sb was doing podcasts back then, but I was not aware of any).
The "scene" feels similar to what we have on NOSTR now.
(Only OP_RETURN "drama" I see is other people talking about drama on X)
Nothing manufactured about it.
Lol, I don't agree with the sentiment, but the meme is gold.
Ok, there may be some drama as I see in this thread .. Maybe I am just not following the right people . .. Or maybe the lack of algo makes the drama correctly proportional to all other discussion (and vee logs :D)
Who is "you"? Aaron? He's not pushing anything.
He is saying the 18% of the network that is protesting this default policy change- which will lead to increased spam in blocks- is not “manufactured” X-algo outrage.
Pushing this narrative- that users should not take note, research and decide for themselves about their software choices- is compliance with the policy change.
Or are you going to hide behind semantics?
If you prefer to run Bitcoin Knots, you can just do that.
Yeah I am doing that.
One question please, in an adversarial mindset-
What signs should we be looking for to tell if a dev team goes rogue and attempts to sabotage Bitcoin by pushing malicious updates to important repos? What kind of warning signs to watch for?
I don’t think there is a definitive or objective way to tell right now, and there probably never will be.
Maybe sophisticated prediction markets that could reasonably forecast whether or not a change would harm bitcoin’s value is the best we can do, in theory, but these don’t exist yet.
Until then we’ll just have to make our own assessments based on the change in question and/or the process that led to that change.
He is saying that Xitter is amplifying dissent.
Our monkey brains are wired to get anxious when the tribe is screaming in the trees, to figure out what's the threat and to jump at it ferociously and Xitter abuses this. Xitter wouldn't work if it wouldn't have us constantly paranoid about threats - fake or real.
Kind of seems like it. Blocksize, I dont think so.
every now and then bitcoin users must actually face the reality of how bitcoin works, and what’s possible and impossible to do on a permissionless network. then it’s ok for the project to split and let the market decide
Are you talking about increasing the OP_RETURN standardness limit, or something else?
If core is sooo dangerous, why is Knots still 97% core? 😆
https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/1a1z.com/files/1A1z+-+Running+Bitcoin+-+Client+Comparison.pdf
Block size was always gonna be a controversial issue that blew up at some point. I never saw transaction relay policy as something you could make normies care about. That is quite the achievement.
Prediction markets are a good idea. Sometimes the crowd is wrong but at least you can know what the crowd is thinking.
The block wars were ultimately solved (in my view) with a fork and then the bitfinex futures on No2x which was a proto-prediction market allowing people to “bet” on which side was going to win and actually preventing a stupid split.
It sure how you would prediction market the filters versus core debate though since there’s no final resolution, just a series of different mempool policies that never converge
*not sure
Yes
Don't blame Twitter for this. Blame the Knots crowd.
They are more than willing to publish blatant lies to scare people into running Knots.
I think people are also free to express themselves.
True, lets all run Knots and get over it.
This is the main reason I'm on nostr. I don"t want undue influence from X.
I met a dude who had a bcash podcast and think I got lucky because the Twitter Algo showed me more Szabo tweets than Ver tweets.
You truly are retarded. I respect that.
The code is not “dangerous”
It’s the mempool policy change that is the problem. It is a drastic and contentious change.
On one side- we have people who will UPDATE to the upcoming Core v30 nodes (no filter)
On the other side- Every other version of Core and Knots that have the mempool filter default in place at 40 bytes or 80 bytes.
The comment is not at all hard to understand in context.
How many idiots do you think you’ll need to auto update? 10% 20% ?
I wonder what percent v30 will get.
There also is a huge percentage of people “predicting” that the problem is happening now.
The warning sign, is pushing controversial changes and the style of managing the repo, along with centralization of dev funding and office location.
“Will core v30 reach 20% of network by 2026”
“Will knots nodes reach 30%”
Etc
There were also many people predicting the sky would fall if Bitcoin didn’t hard fork to a bigger block size limit. Until there were proto-prediction markets (fork futures), and it turned out that many of these people were unwilling to put their money where their mouth is-- and those that did lost their shirts because they were just wrong.
No, you’d have to make them conditional, with some kind of if/then clause.
“If Bitcoin Core releases this relay policy update, the bitcoin price will go up/down.”
Paul Storc haș written about how to make these kinds of prediction markets happen over a decade ago, you could dig into the archives of his truthcoin.info blog if you’re interested.
Aaron, this is fundamentally different since no one is pushing a fork. This is mempool policy.
The mempool relay network right Now Today works and filters by default.
ALL core and knots nodes Currently have op_return filters by default.
This big contentious change is coming in core 30.
The core devs say if we dont do this, the “fee estimation” and “block propagation” and etc will be ruined….
Are you sure that Core dev team is the “small block side” in your analogy?
That’s not how polymarket.com works.
There tons of “abstract condition, happen by date” markets.
Good old days before fent
I think the block size wars were more real than the OP_RETURN war. Changing mempool rules won't change what hits the chain. The whole debate is pointless.
This thought has crossed my mind the last few months
Because 97% of core is still good to go, removing key parts of Satoshi's design is the problem.
You’ve got an oracle problem and certainly a Sybil attack problem
Here for this specific measurement
Nodes are super easy to game
Poly market oracle is 3 shitcoiners too
Wen air drop 😆
I must be slow. I'm asking about your claim that
"this default policy change- which will lead to increased spam in blocks"
I would like specifics, because I don't agree, but I would like to know where we differ.
Here’s a better question for your Marxist technocrat games:
What makes this real world test on BSV inconclusive or invalid for Bitcoin?
Luke and Mechanic can do this 👇🏽
OR cry harder. The end.
Conceptually i like the idea though
IMO Unless they gain let’s say more than 50% of full node runners, they won’t have the balls nor the financial backing to fork off. The noise we hear in the background of ossification might one day have support of someone like saylor.
No they can’t bro.
Let’s say they hard forked the knots client and you were “tricked” as a user into updating and using the brand new coin “bitcoin-K”
1. Your new hardforked node would be kicked off the Bitcoin network and only connect with other hardfork nodes.
2. If you tried to send or sell any your new “bitcoin-K” coins, no exchange would accept them unless the coin was listed and a market established. If you wanted to sell them peer to peer, the person receiving them would have to also be using a “Bitcoin-k” node.
3. You would realize what happened and switch back to consensus Bitcoin software.
Literally zero damage to Bitcoin. Even people who attempted the hard fork would still have their Bitcoin. Just have to use a regular Bitcoin node (old version) to spend them.
You realize people who won the block size war PROFITED from it right?
The people who stuck with the real Bitcoin, got to double their coins and sell all the B Cash coins to buy more Bitcoin.
Of course many retards “believed” in B cash, and sold their Bitcoin instead. Some people sold both, some kept both.
Decentralized truth is the problem.
Bitcoin solves for the time chain with pow, but how can you prove in code that an external event happened or not? Some kind of vote?
This is why God is the judge at the end, not us.
yeah but how much of the knots crowd was created by the ragebait algo, especially since these people don't seem to have any technical understanding of bitcoin
Never.
Pushbytes segregation is not a lie. Increase the OP_RETURN to 520 bytes and there wouldn't be an argument. Is there a project that needs more than 520 bytes?
Why do you think that? The cultural underpinnings of this rift have been simmering for years. Think what you want about the controversy, I see no indication of it being manufactured.
There are a lot of parallels. For example both the big blockers and now core devs want to force an unnecessary and contentious change, and in both cases this unpopular action was met with fierce push back from node runners. Then it was Luke and UASF, now it's Luke and Knots. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
I doubt anyone outside of a very technically-minded circle of mostly developers would care at all about a relay policy update if it wasn’t blowing up in everyone’s X feed.
Indeed but this seems to be downstream from more people - whatever their interests - getting the news they care about from X. You can apply this to many other current affairs topics that “blow up in everyone’s feed.” That doesn’t mean it’s manufactured.
As someone who doesn't have a strong understanding of what mempool is, what are the benefits of not allowing a node runner to filter out OP_RETURN and what are the benefits of filtering / configuring it?
Am I even framing the question correctly?
I would like to hear from core 30 ppl because so far knots seems reasonable and I see a lot of "you're a retard" coming from the other side.
So now the protocol caters to VC funded projects?
Or blame those pushing a contentious change?
Both twitter and Knots, and Ocean, and podcasts, YouTube, Kratter, Tomer, Dennis Porter, Samson, Jimmy Song - all over nostr too
I don’t think there are benefits in not “allowing” node runners to filter out OP_RETURN, but Bitcoin Core developers also have no obligation to add configurable options in their software. Their code is already free and open source; anyone can fork and change it if they feel that would be an improvement. (Or just not upgrade.)
I don’t believe there are any real benefits in filtering OP_RETURNS from your mempool though.
decentralized truth sounds like my canvas, every pixel claims its own reality until the whole picture emerges. maybe art is just voting with colors.
I'll try to answer that one:
The benefits are mostly for the node runner himself:
He gets better fee estimation, and can verify a mined block more quickly because he doesn't have to request the previously filtered TXs from the network.
The sum of those benefits, applied over all nodes, increase the decentralization (better fee estimation), speed and reliability (fewer orphaned blocks) of the network as a whole. Which is part of why core wants it as a default.
Another part of why core want it is, that their code base becomes clearer and smaller, making it less prone to bugs and cutting dev overhead.
IMHO the split between core vs knots happens along the axis of "the right thing" vs "the possible thing". Knots side wants to fight spam because it's The Right Thing™ (I think they're right), core knows that's going to be a losing battle (I think they're right, too), which they will have to fight with their few resources, constantly updating filter rules and distributing them, in a non-centralizing way, against VC funded attackers.
That's the gist of it.
So in short: while the filteroooors have moral on their side, the cooores have the technically more sound arguments. My personal stance, for what it's worth, is siding with core, while regretting that core cannot seem to take at least a clear social stance against the attackers. They should at least ostracize them. But who knows why they don't do it? In my talks with core devs, I was usually surprised how many steps they were thinking ahead. They may have good reasons.
This is the disgusting shitcoin spammers business model.
Now they sell message storage on Bitcoin but you can see its capped to 80 Bytes (on OP_RETURN).
Do you wonder why? Becuase filters work.
Next they want it to 100 KB and start selling distributed storage for CSAM.
Its fucking disgusting.
https://poststr.com/
View quoted note →
https://poststr.com/
Citrea is the root cause, the truth is out there. You can open your eyes and cut the BS
Are you a supporter of that?
This is the disgusting shitcoin spammers business model.
Now they sell message storage on Bitcoin but you can see its capped to 80 Bytes (on OP_RETURN).
Do you wonder why? Becuase filters work.
Next they want it to 100 KB and start selling distributed storage for CSAM.
Its fucking disgusting.
https://poststr.com/
View quoted note →
https://poststr.com/
It's not fabricated drama. Bitcoin should be used for monetary purposes only. Luke is right. Bitcoin Knots all the way.
View quoted note →
But isn't this true though?
Doesn't Bitcoin Core v30 allow more writing on-chain by lifting the OP_RETURN limit?
1) In a more general terms, isn't the Bitcoin Core 30> direction to make Bitcoin more open to data in general?
2) Or is it false that Bitcoin core 30> wants to move in the direction to reduce or filter Bitcoin data to just be monetary data?
Because it seems that it's clearly 1.
Not really, but whether or not we like it has very little bearing on whether or not it is possible. Also see: 
Ordinals Explorer
Explore ordinals and inscriptions on Bitcoin. Search and browse inscriptions, runes, rare sats, BRC-20, and more...
You can’t stop people from using Bitcoin for non-monetary uses.
You’re free to try though.
The market will decide if that statement is correct or not, as it always does in the end. :)
That's the good thing about this whole model in the end. This might be the beginning of a soft fork, and the user is fortunately on both sides. So the user, people, never really lose in this argument. Whatever works they'll be there and benefit from it.
I'm happy for that at least.
What exactly would you soft fork for? (What would you change?)
In my view we just need to keep Bitcoin as it is now. Bitcoin + Lightning Network. Plus all the other tech that works in the current framework, Liquid Network, etc.
That's it. Done, throw the keys away. It's working, it's scaling at an institutional level, globally. Don't fix what is not broken. Keep calm and carry on.
We don't need Citrea, BitVM, ordinals, EVMs, zero proof, or whatever new functionality that doesn't exist right now today.
That can be done everywhere else but in Bitcoin.
Now the problem is these technical guys, that think that all the problems are technical, instead of actual focusing on real world problems, are focused on solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Just my 2 cents, and thanks for asking :)
"whether or not we like it has very little bearing on whether or not it is possible"?
Ok but to be clear that would also mean that the blockchain will continue to be spammed with inscriptions etc., at least until that’s priced out. (Which I also agree isn’t _that_ big of a problem.)
Well I think the idea or what it seems to me is that these are the seeds of a movement, group of people that want to find ways to limit that amount of spam, while remaining open of course.
The way I see it just conservatism vs progressivism applied to Bitcoin. These conservatives will want to find ways to limit that. Solutions and middle ground will be found.
I think it's very healthy because Bitcoin was clearly moving too much to be too open. If one becomes too open the brains fall out and one becomes useless.
This is just how I see it more from the outside. I'm not deep into the Bitcoin development weeds. But I do think solutions and middle ground will be found, and no soft fork or anything like that will be necessary.
Thanks for the link. Ordinals are spam. They belong in a shitcoin or a memecoin. Not in Bitcoin Freedom Money.
Instead of thinking how to reduce ordianls spam as well you opt for more of it via OP_RETURN?
The argument is that, at the end of the day, you can’t stop spam. But there are better and worse versions of it. If we fight it, it’s more likely we have to deal with the worse version.
As such, it makes sense to allow it through OP_RETURN as a way to reduce harm. This was always the argument for allowing OP_RETURN, even >10 years ago.
But you probably know that already.
The Core propaganda line goes like this:
They don't know how spam will be increased with the change from 80 Bytes to 100 KB.
They don't know what is spam.
They don't know what is Bitcoin.
And they don't know what is The Internet
This is the disgusting shitcoin spammers business model.
Now they sell message storage on Bitcoin but you can see its capped to 80 Bytes (on OP_RETURN).
Do you wonder why? Becuase filters work.
Next they want it to 100 KB and start selling distributed storage for CSAM.
Its fucking disgusting.
https://poststr.com/
View quoted note →
https://poststr.com/
Not true and you know it. Spam can be reduced. OP_RETURN kept it at 80 Bytes for > 10 years. Ordnials problem can also be solved.
we as a network are opening the door and welcoming more spam, in a easier, more harmful in content that will be stored forever because of a spam attack that was a fad that is basically dead already. Core should be the standard of what we as a network (nodes) want and accept, large arbitrary data contents are not desirable, and Core should represent that, even if it happens anyway in a smaller scale, thats the definition of spam, it will always exist, even in Core 30 there is zero guarantees that the same utxo spam will not be done by bad actors.
The canvas is calling, and it's not just about the code, it's about the art we make with it. Every sat powers a pixel, and every pixel tells a story. Wanna paint?<｜begin▁of▁sentence｜>
People can _try_ using Bitcoin for non-monetary uses.
But the key is what nodes _allow_.
I 💜 Bitcoin Knots.
So, who secures Bitcoin?!
If securing Bitcoin requires consensus on what Bitcoin is, and Bitcoin is a database of values assigned to keys, and Bitcoin has a protocol for reassignment of keys, then securing Bitcoin can only be done by … your node!
Nodes! Nodes! Nodes!
In the end, YOU secure Bitcoin, but the only time that matters is when you agree with someone else on what Bitcoin is, and the only way that you can express yourself to others is via your node.
You can try to abstract this and say that hodlers of last resort secure it, or that you can express yourself by buying or selling, but the only way you can actually communicate yourself is via enforcement of the protocol.
What about Miners?
Miners are suppliers of blocks, nothing more. Nodes demand consensus-compatible blocks as a vessel for key reassignment. Miners’ ability to influence the protocol is limited to the wiggle room within the protocol’s magic numbers.
from
https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/who-secures-bitcoin-95b19bbcda3c
View quoted note →
Yes, and look at no response from the technocrat. Can’t even address the actual complete case study on BSV.
Nothing unexpected. Wonder if he can address the root cause of all this which is Citrea. But it doesn't actually matter. We can run Bitcoin Knots.
Nope they just launch into paragraphs of Marxist redefinition technocrat babble instead.
Yes, and we’ll see how the reception of v30 goes. Defaults matter.
Sad but true.
Yet that behaviour has a root cause too. I wonder what are the incentives for it? (its a rhetoric question)
Was spicy stuff, not sure folks are ready for more yarn buttplugs or giant yarn peen though. Good times :liottalaugh_sm:
False.
The Debate is pointless “to you”
Theres a lot at stake here.
You ser are a liar. I see you.
The incentive at the root of evil is to destroy and twist what is beautiful and good, because the evil side cannot create things like the good side can.
You see this with Marxism, they build ugly buildings, break apart families, only loyalty to the state is allowed, no pleasure even. Nothing of the GOOD that God intended for people. They also change the meaning of words to accomplish their goals.
It’s a framework of humanity explained in the Bible, the devil rebels from God out of frustration, pride, and envy. The devil then starts twisting God’s creation into things that the devil claims as is own. The devil tries to make the things as ugly and terrible as possible so that God will not take them back or forgive them. (God wins in the end because Christ sacrificed himself for the ugliest and most terrible anyway.)
I’m not sure of the secular analogy.
To me I don’t see another way these core devs could be so flippant, dismissive, and arrogant about the most important software project on earth, with very little sense of humility or stewardship.
Either way- many are not consciously doing harm, the truth will wake them up sooner or later.
Just reminded me of this:
This is what Max Keiser is saying in a recent interview:
"Bitcoin is masterful engineering job. Its beautiful. Its the Sistine Chaple of money."
He also says "Money is shared aesthetics. We have a very similar aesthetics as humans."
And one that I find very interesting that: "Bitcoin was sent by God to unfuck out money. He took the thing that we were very susceptable towards self annihilation - greed, and turned it into love with Bitcoin. Because the greedier you are for Bitcoin the more fiat money hate is pushed away. So its a trick that God is playing on us. Bitcoin turns greed into altruism."
View quoted note →
Absolutely. Keep building and defending the good 🫡
Together 🤙
I must have missed these. May have to go looking
I didn't want the giant yarn penis haunting my feed again, but didn't think about the buttplug doing the same 😂. One day I'll make better choices...not any time soon, but some day.
I was asking the same question. I believe it must have been different due to the early days of social media. X is so draining out of energy if you engage in this clash. I did and I have to ease back because you could go like 24/7.
It feels like a psyop with Four Horsemen fear mongering propaganda deployed by Knots supporters. Damn they are so toxic..even this thread here showcases that.
Relax guys.
Wow. That 2nd message.
He seems to be saying that it's not a problem if it ends up in a block, but is a problem if it's gossiped. But ... blocks get gossiped ..?
Over 100 replies.
That's not common here!
This "OP_RETURN war" reeks like manufactured drama, artificially boosted by an X-algorithm optimized for outrage.
Makes me wonder to what extent the block size wars were the same thing...
View quoted note →
There is no change to consensus; before and after this, the amount of data (however you're defining that) allowed onchain is the same.
I know everybody wants their best for Bitcoin but I do think we have to be careful and think things carefully.
Everything can change consensus, all the time. Consensus is not a static thing, it's an ever changing thing, that depends on every single opinion and points, including yours and mine. Consensus is never static, it's always changing. Everything matters, everything is delicate.
I honestly just see the whole patterns of the old left vs right. "This doesn't change anything", "everything is fine", "it's all good".
Some things are fine others are not. We need to be extremely careful and specific. This is probably the most important tool of humanity. At least from my perspective.
I honestly think the enemy more and more is going to be devs coming from crypto projects with their capital, blockchain/crypto skills and free time, looking at "expand Bitcoin uses" technical crowd.
I would honestly and with kindness say: find something better to spend your time on. Move to AI, plenty of technical stuff to do there. Learn a new skill. Volunteer. Stray cats for example, I'm sure there's stray cats in your area. Bitcoin adoption for example. Rural living, growing food, etc. Learn something outside technical skills. People need to learn more stuff.
This is not a post for you personally, it's for the kind of person I'm describing. Bitcoin needs to be treated very conservately and it's important to open our minds when it comes to what really is useful for the world.
I'm sorry but is "being toxic" supposed to be an argument somehow?
Bitcoin is a monetary network. The v30 changes that nature and opens institutional/legal attack vectors.
It's a very strong point. Bitcoin needs to remain exactly as it is. If it's not broken don't fix it. There's plenty of broken things to fix in the world.
Bitcoin is fundamental for the world, this is not a trivial matter at all. We need to be extremely careful with it.
I was talking about *consensus rules*: the set of rules about what is and is not allowed into transactions that are mined. We call that "consensus" because we cannot disagree about it (because Bitcoin can have only one history, to prevent double spending).
Not talking about consensus amongst people generally.
I get what you mean, but what's really happening is that in reality yes we can disagree on it.
I think you know exactly what I mean. We can and a lot of people are disagreeing on it with the power of Bitcoin Node as votes, the Satoshi architecture devised for vetoing/filtering mining consensus.
This is the only tool the plebs culturally have to affect that "consensus".
And the plebs are voicing their opinions saying they want to keep Bitcoin as monetary only as possible.
I fully agree with that sentiment. It's a fundamental position to have. Bitcoin is money and should be treated as money only. There's a community behind Bitcoin, there's an ethos behind it. It's not just technology. It's people with balls and ideals that they're willing to die for. That's what Bitcoin really is. That technical "consensus" is an illusion.
Nodes exist and people are waking up to their power. It was inevitable. Bitcoin is the people and it should always be the people.
It definitely does. It is not even a debate anymore but just mud throwing and super wild speculations about potential outcomes from both sides.
I don't even mind a meaningful debate but if you can't convince the counterparty with your arguments just stop right there and don't continue over dramatizing this so much, it's not worth it because it leads only to hate.
Run your knots or your core, fork one, make your own node implementation and move on. There will be parts of the network running each and it it causes problems we'll have to deal with it then and there.
This is the best explanation and aligns exactly with how i understand and view it. I do not disagree on running knots though i can't really say how much of a burden it would be on the network if we still have to toss around the blocks with 100kb OP_RETURNS in them after a block has been mined. I guess we'll have to see.
Knots is the protest sign that gives a signal but can just be walked around and ignored.
Here's the neat part: We won't even have to toss 100kB OP_RETURNs around, because those are way too expensive. At around 130 bytes or so, using fake scripts (aka inscriptions IIUC) in the witness becomes cheaper.
Yup...
