Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

1. I tried to earnestly understand and explore @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr and @Super Testnet’s arguments. With Luke I just have to say “agree to disagree” when he argues that CSAM is _only_ illegal/immoral when it’s in an OP_RETURN up ‘till 100kb post-September 2025— everything else is “non-CSAM” in his view even if they’re the exact same bytes. Super Testnet meanwhile seems to have gotten stuck on this question: View quoted note →  2. It was never about Citrea specifically; Citrea just showed that there is demand for >80 bytes of data, and if such use cases can’t use OP_RETURN they’ll just use fake pubkeys which NO ONE should want.  3. Not a technical argument. But I’d say if anyone uses nasty triggers it’s Luke et al claiming (and this is a real quote) “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”— not to mention the shit you’re throwing at the wall here yourself.

↑ Parent

Replies (3)

Tauri tauri@mynostr.com 1 month ago

It’s a simple issue that is being overly complicated. If you sanction large blobs of data in the official software implementation you will get more data as a result and also much more wider attack surface. People that overcomplicate this stuff _at this point_ should be considered bad faith actors who should be either a) ignored, b) called out, or c) outright insulted. Are you a bad faith actor, sir? It sure looks like it from your recent posts I skimmed through.

Super Testnet 1 month ago

You mentioned that I didn't reply to one of your questions I apologize for not replying sooner

Super Testnet

Sorry for not replying sooner I think there are at least two downsides of op_returns: (1) their purpose is to store arbitrary data, which discourages node running the more it is used, and thus increases node centralization; (2) they store that arbitrary data in a relatively precious location -- base space -- which drives up fees more than alternatives like inscription envelopes.

View quoted note →

Giacomo Zucco giacomozucco@primal.net 1 month ago

1) I agree with you, and disagree with Luke, about those CSAM claims: I find the entire thing nonsense. And I'm not sure about your argument with SuperTestnet, I'll read it better. My claim here is not that Luke or Supertestnet are always right, it's just that the "experts vs demagogues" framing is misleading, if repeated as blanket statement without careful specifics. I just gave 2 examples of very technically experienced "Knozis" and of 2 communication-skilled "Coretards", I could give many others, including most of the current "Coretards" that wrote down the very same "Knozi" talking points just a few years ago (of course they could successfully make the case of why they changed their mind, but their past positions were not motivated by technical illiteracy or by demagogic influence). 2) I'm not claiming it was about Citrea specifically, and I don't think it was. I think it is about a clash between two legit design philosophies: the original "mempool policies as network nudging" one, and the more recent and uptrending "mempool policies as network predicting" one (I'm more convinced by the latter, so I'm "team Core" in this). I thin it is also about a trust crisis in Core's main people and processes to levels not seen since the block size wars, and a fracture between them and some relevant users. I think it is also about old personal beefs, radicalized by a specific nasty event, and about the broader "culture wars" splilling into Bitcoin a bit. I just wanted to clarify those points about Citrea.

1 replies ↓