Replies (112)
Thank you, sir.
🫡
Luke Dashjr
Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit:
1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.
2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").
3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.
The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.
View quoted note →
How much network share do you think we need to see knots before considering off-curve, also known as fake public key filtering? Did Core want to open one door for spammers? Let's slam shut two instead.
Bitcoin Core isn't controlled by bad actors. Its contributors are focused on improving how Bitcoin works. And they do it with taking into account the bitcoin community.
Bitcoin Core isn't controlled by bad actors. Its contributors are focused on improving how Bitcoin works for venture capital and non-monetary transactions. And they do it by taking away filters and cranking up the defaults by 1000x
Back to square one?
I remember when bcashers have been shunned for proposing more than one (reference) clients in the name of decentralisation.
Are we going through the same process all over again?
Core has been compromised for well over a decade. Last time they got rid of Bitcoin needs to be a MoE first people. This time they get rid of the Bitcoin needs to function as sound money above all else.
I am glad we have Monero to re-unite OGs that came here 15 years ago to upgrade the MoneyOS of this world.
It's safest to assume at least 1 bad actor is on the team, possibly more. How should that scenario then be handled?
Ethereum devs are also focused on improving how Ethereum "works".
Am I too not in this community? Are you?
when more knots maintainers? if we want mass migration, the project will need more contributors to vouch for it and more eyes on it. Its the best remedy to those citing insecurity as the only downside
Also, have you looked at Garbageman? Interesting method to defang OP_RETURN nodes, but it does turn into a cat & mouse game
Long live alternative bitcoin implementations. We need diversity and competition. Thanks
@Luke DashjrHey Luke, right now the mempool is empty.
Are you considering this ?
Today’s quiet mempool isn’t a danger—the subsidy still secures the chain—but the new unlimited-blob rule is permanent and will let the subsequent spam wave stuff blocks, driving up disk, RAM, and bandwidth costs until only datacentres can afford to run nodes. Meanwhile fast off-chain payment networks are on track to reach global scale within a couple of years, so real payment traffic—not chain-bloating uploads—will feed the fee market once the subsidy is gone; if we don’t keep block weight in check now, we’ll end up with Ethereum-style centralised validation just as those fees finally arrive.
Core disappointed. They are facilitating and encouraging non-monetary transactions. Yeah we cannot block it, but there is no need to facilitate spam !
I switch to Knots.
I hope I will bring hundred Knots users from Poland this year. Few hundreds next year. LFG!
👌🏻👌🏻
That’s simply not true because a block can not be larger than 4mb and we have a block time of ten minutes. This rule is written in stone!
Inscriptions are not an exploit and a dumb mempool rule will change nothing about it. And because you know this you started a pool which rewards miners to play your rules.
How Inscriptions are not an exploit
When we say “the cap is X,” we’re talking about the consensus block-size limit—nothing else. Un-capping OP_RETURN makes it normal for every block to slam into that limit with random data, and once that feels routine, the most “logical” follow-up from Core is to raise the block size again. Meanwhile, the most “logical” move from alternative node software will be to clap back by filtering off-curve fake pub-key blobs—because if we’re playing Whac-A-Mole, we might as well bring a bigger mallet.
Core is dead. Move on.
🤡
My understanding is that we have 4mb max block size and if 1 transaction is 4mb they will have to pay massive fees because the bigger the transaction the more fees they have to pay.
There is a huge cost to spam.
I am not worried about this
Fees are set by price-per-byte, not by “big transaction = big fee.”
When blocks aren’t full, the price floor is tiny, so a blob that fills an entire block can ride in for that same low rate—cheap for the sender, but every node must download and keep those extra megabytes forever.
It's sat/ vb and if op return size is bigger, it's more vb. Right ?
Exactly—they pay a one-off fee in the low hundreds to a few thousand dollars, then that blob sits rent-free on every full node’s disk forever.
Venture capital are bad actors. Sole goal is to dump shit on retail
True but a 4tb hard drive is 100$.
I am annoyed by this stupidity inscription but it is not a threat to decentralisation
Rare sats and frog jpegs are not why I started a node. I’m not a free cloud data storage provider. Simple as that.
I respect your risk assessment; there is no one-size-fits-all. 🤟
Thank you sir.
It already has more than Core, despite the FUD
Yes
Liar
if there is a fork, will i need to transfer my coins to the new chain or will it happen automatically?
If you hold your keys you don’t have to worry about a fork. Your coins will be on both chains.
It’s a use case for the networks blockchain if you like it or not doesn’t matter
Then you haven’t understood what a decentralized network works. Everyone can use bitcoin as he likes. No matter if you like it or not.
The time you decided to run a node you committed to save up to 4mb every 10 minutes.
What is the best way to run Knots (with or without mining) if I can not run it from home. Any provider you suggest that also allows running a Knots node?
You cannot raise the block size because it would require a hard fork.
Only a matter of config, in contrast to future core.
nevent1qqsfmzzazp5hht2hn9s5f7u27afuvpqkxp6zqrjkrn4rrqdxfc99d3qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq3qlh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsxpqqqqqqzdmzjut
There won’t be a fork. Knots enforces the same consensus rule set as Core. The only difference is how the two clients handle policy rules, which can’t result in a chain split.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like the idea behind the Ocean Pool and I appreciate your work on Datum. But we have different opinions about how bitcoin should be used. That’s completely fine for me 😊
Oh, and I checked the Fees on Ocean again. Cool that you don’t charge different fees for different block templates anymore. I like that 👍🏻
Godspeed
Bitcoin is MONEY for enemies. “A peer to peer electronic CASH system.” And I’ll die on this hill my friend.
People perverting its use case through exploits is not decentralized use cases. I suggest you check out SOL or ETH. It may be more what you’re looking for.
I’m fully on your side.
But it’s neither your job nor mine to tell others how they should use the Bitcoin blockchain.
If someone chooses to store data on-chain, that’s their decision — it’s not my business, and I won’t try to stop them.
That still doesn’t mean that a set of developers can remove my ability to filter out the transactions I don’t want to process on MY node. Telling me that they know better because they can code and I should just accept the changes I don’t understand, I’m good. That’s why I left the fiat banking system.
Thank you so much for all you do.
Bitcoin is money or did you not learn this?
It seems most agree on this, so go on knots if you don't agree. It is the only way to "vote" for a vision change.
"Anyway, this kind of non-technical discussion seems off-topic for this pull-req. Best to do it on the mailing list. And furthermore, people have choice - Knots exists. If they wish to enforce these limits on their own nodes they're welcome to run Knots. There's no reason why Bitcoin Core should be forced to take on the maintenance burden of maintaining arbitrary limits that we believe are ineffective, and even harmful."
GitHub
Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs by petertodd · Pull Request #32359 · bitcoin/bitcoin
As per recent bitcoindev mailing list discussion.
Also removes the code to enforce those limits, including the -datacarrier and -datacarriersize co...
Pass
The thing is that a change on your nodes mempool policy changes noting. You will get the transaction either way when the block is mined because they are valid no matter what your mempool policy says.
So the complete discussion is stupid because no matter what your nodes mempool does. The network doesn’t care
Incorrect. Nodes broadcast the transactions to the mempool/ miners. That’s the whole point for a node network all running the software in consensus. Think of it this way, when Bitcoin is double spent, or the data of a transaction is too high, it won’t be picked up by then nodes, and broadcasted to the mempool. And it will not be included in the block once it’s mined.
Same goes for spam filters. My private instance of the mempool could be vastly different from the public one at .space, because of the filters I’ve set. Some transactions simply don’t exist on my instance because of my parameters. If I was able to mine that block myself, those transactions that I have filtered out will not exist in that block.
Yes it is. But this doesn’t mean that people can’t use the underlaying blockchain for data storage.
Inscriptions and ordinals are potentially zero day exploits wrapped in colorful memes.
I can send a transaction directly to a miner or mine transactions myself. So your mempool policy is completely useless! The only thing you will get with such bullshit is that people are sending transactions directly to miners.
They are not, because the blocks are valid 🤷🏼♂️
Congress passes bloated pork bills filled with graft and largesse which are also “valid” according to Constitutional protocols.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. 🌳
Inscriptions exploit SegWit’s discounted witness space to insert arbitrary data, bypassing Bitcoin ‘s intended use as a money. That’s why.
My node will never block valid transactions!
But I wish you lots of fun patronizing others on how they should use Bitcoin.
So everything works as intended 🤷🏼♂️
You spelt without wrong.
Projecting accusations onto others what your original message actually commits is a red herring nor does it change reality.
“Valid” is logic (rule-based model) and is not necessarily synonymous with effective or true when applied to reality.
Greeks entering Troy’s gates via a wooden horse or Mongols bribing Jin guards to open gates to the Great Wall of China were also valid given neither violated the laws of physics.
serious question: if it's so easy to fork bitcoin and it's open source why there aren't multiple clients around developed by the main bitcoin brands like blockstream, microstrategy, strike, swan, river, bullbitcoin, etc...???
I find it extremely funny how a few individuals try to decide how others should use Bitcoin.
Because a 'client' is not something you do on a whim. It is a serious software project because it involves peoples money and capital
So if the Knots clients with additional filters doesn't 'fix the spam'... the only course of action at that point is a consensus change. Which could result in a hard fork.
If the filters don't work well enough... then a consensus change is warranted. Right?
Whatever actually "is" an ordinal? An ordinal is not a thing.
An 'ordinal' is just an arbitrary made-up numbering system for 'numbering' Satoshis.
And an "inscription" is just a made-up blob of arbitrary data that can be artificially "sold" (but not really) by pretending that ordinals exist.
I "give" you the "numbered sat" and we "pretend" that you "own" that blob without necessarily owning any more *actual* Bitcoin.
That's all that 'ordinals' are. It's like numbering clouds.
The irony is that a few individuals charged with spearheading freedom through decentralization (i.e. Bitcoin Core) seek to undermine it by mandating how others use their personal Bitcoin nodes; i.e. removing their OP_Return limit options.
In essence, Core is mulcting Bitcoin nodes as game theory or indirect pressure to centralize, control, and destroy Bitcoin which happens to be the only bulwark between you and a totalitarian state.
Bitcoin blockchain bloat is a shelling point for centralization and control.
The real irony is Bitcoin Core falling victim to Control Paradox.
Filters work well when deployed on large enough scale. They don’t fix the problem entirely. The fallacy of the other side’s argument is that we should aim for perfect results with getting rid of the spam (which won’t happen even if we fork the chain with consensus rule change) or we should abandon the fight entirely.
This is total nonsense
I don't believe that filtering op_return is possible. It has been around 10 years... and any op_return of any size is enough space for degens to 'create' meme coins. A "rune" is just an op_return with a name... "indicating" arbitrarily that an output or outputs are 'memecoins'. It's really silly.
Couldn't other data schemes effectively do the same thing? The vast majority of inscriptions aren't even jpegs... they're 'tokens' or indicators for tokens which op_return can already do.
“”Whatever actually is a Bitcoin? A Bitcoin is not a thing. It is just an arbitrary blob of data used for transactions…””🤦♂️
Adjust your paradigm to a level of abstraction that favors utility.
Employing Wittgenstein semantical arguments is nonproductive.
We have to be able to define terms based on reality.
yes that what i thought... but don't you find that at odds with how easy shitcoiners come up with new coins?
i think there is clearly a lack of incentives beside altruism
You clearly still haven’t understood that the limit should be removed because it is completely irrelevant! It has always been possible to mine arbitrarily large transactions directly or to send them to a miner. So the limit is completely pointless since it has no effect.
And the argument that the blockchain gets bloated is also nonsense, because you can simply prune the data.
i mean new bLoCkChaiNs not coins....
Core 30 is worse than
Are you referring to MARA’s slip stream? You pay them thousands of dollars for them to use their hash rate to only include your large data set/ transaction, enough to fill an entire block if you want. It’s using their nodes block template to be selective of certain “transactions” and then using the full force of their hash rate to mine that block with their set filters. There’s actually no guarantee that the block will be mined believe it or not. It’s also the exact equivalent to what I’m trying to explain. I have a a spam filter, they take money to filter everything but spam. The same but very different. I also only have 5 TH backing my template haha. But if I were to mine a block, there wouldn’t be any more than 83kb of data per transaction for my block.
So all in all, my argument is that Core decided to remove my ability to filter what transactions my node sees. That’s why I switched to Knots.
Exactly, your node only accepts the transaction in the mempool. So in a high fee market your own mempool can become useless when it comes to calculating fees because you only see half of the transactions.
And switching to knots changes only your mempool settings. It doesn’t changes what others see and what other minds put in their block templates. So at the end you will get the transactions either way because they are valid even in the eyes of a knots node.
So the whole discussion is completely stupid and useless because a different setting on your side changes nothing.
You can already mine transactions with larger data than 83kb today 🤷🏼♂️
Yeah I think we’re just going in circles at this point. If every node ran knots with spam filters, and only broadcasted monetary transactions to the mempool, spam would never be included in the block. Those spam transaction wouldn’t exist for a miner to mine. That scenario would never happen unfortunately. Especially when it’s pretty clear that the core developers and large mining companies are only interested in profit and shareholder value. At the end of the day it was incredibly simple to switch my node from core to knots. I just won’t support software that thinks removing features is better for the network at the cost of my storage and node power. I heard an interesting contrast the other day, just because burglars are armed with a hammer to smash the glass out of your windows, doesn’t mean you don’t lock your doors anyways. Don’t ever say it’s pointless to try and filter spam, it’s not. My instance of Bitcoin will never recognize jpegs on the blockchain, and I’m happy with that.
Imagine I’m Tom Cruise and you’re Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men” (1992).
I proceed to ask you a simple question while you’re under oath as follows:
“If the OP_RETURN spam limit is as irrelevant as you say then why has Core risked all their political capital and the potential ossification of Bitcoin to have it removed?”
Word
This
Ahahah yes
I tried to post this on Reddit and it was removed
There are an infinite number of 'new coins'. They can be created and are created by the *millions* every single day in "crypto".
In my opinion the best filter in the long run that's ethically economically and technically sound for Bitcoin is the fee market... and a community that passionately *uses* Bitcoin to keep that market competitive.
The 'new coins' can be created in an infinite number of ways... and the 'shitcoiners' will run out of money eventually when people stop buying them. People don't have infinite money and over time they give up and move on.
Maybe so but that's not about Bitcoin. They don't have new blockchains. They have new 'servers' that they pretend are decentralized or something
I find it extremely funny that you don’t understand that it doesn’t matter how many nodes run with Knots. It only takes one miner to break away from your censorship and do things differently.
You don’t understand that it’s much more lucrative for miners to allow data than to leave it out.
For you, the additional data changes absolutely nothing! The blockchain grows at a maximum of 4MB every 10 minutes, and if you don’t want the OP_Return data, just delete it.
What you’re forgetting in your obsession with blocking “spam” is that if you prevent one method, people will find new ways to integrate data into the blockchain. These methods already exist, and they’re even more inefficient—and suddenly, they can no longer be pruned.
So have fun fighting this pointless ideological battle. My node will never block transactions, and my miners will always allow data.
I fear this is the beginning of the end. I hope one day we’re not arguing over if bitcoin should move to proof of stake, and larger blocks again so we can cram more pointless scam tokens into bitcoin. “It’s pointless to do proof of work, we can mint tokens so much faster through PoS, what’s it matter they’ll be minted anyway since we removed the guardrails. And let’s just up the block size too. What’s it matter? It’s pointless the blockchain will be huge eventually, let’s just bump up the size now and cut to the chase, we can sell me ordinal tokens!”
I find it extremely funny that a protocol was made for monetary transactions and you think it’s alright to spam and bloat the process, even welcome it. What’s the end goal here? Mint as much garbage tokens and ordinals to sell overpriced UTXOs to weak minded individuals with deep pockets, and VCs and crypto firms get rich? And you cheer that on? They make money and tell you it’s pointless to filter their spam and you lap that up?
I’m all for individuals being individuals and self sovereignty. That’s why I became a part of this community. But I’ll stand up for the integrity of this project when developers and VCs start making actual software changes for me “in my best interest.” Think who benefits the most from these changes. What is the point of putting non transactional data on the block chain? Just because you can, you should be able to permanently alter software code that’s run by the majority of the nodes? That’s shady at best, I’m picking sides.
I’m for individuals being individuals and self sovereignty, but I want to decide how people have to use Bitcoin 😂😂😂😂
Who is benefiting from the change?! No one, because nothing has changed, but I think you are not able to understand that 🤷🏼♂️
So have fun running knots and doing your thing. I will definitely not say others how to use bitcoin. That’s the difference between both of us.
I do see the duality by the way, and something I am conflicted with. However I stand by my statement that bitcoin is money for enemies. I don’t care if my enemy uses bitcoin for money. I do care if anyone uses bitcoin to put a picture of a pizza on the blockchain and take up space on my node forever. I guess that is where we’re different.
That's just for mempool propagation though?
You're missing Core pivoting from willful negligence to active malice. You're missing this being a problem that needs resolution 2 years ago. You're missing that Core denies miners using it that freedom. You're missing that nodes matter. You're missing that real L2s don't use op_return, only scams.
OP_RETURN is used for LN channel backups
Could you share the source of this info? Googled for it and found nothing
Hmm very interesting!
Do you know how many bytes they need for that?
====================================
#7 ⚡ Most Zapped Last Week
===================================
Nostr’s Value4Value (V4V) model is all about plebs directly rewarding creators for the value they receive, no middlemen fees, no ads, just pure community-driven support using sats via the Bitcoin Lightning Network. Thanks to
ZAPLIFE.LOL
A decentralized Craigslist running on Nostr
by
@PABLOF7z for providing this data.
Here are the Top Zapped/Top Zappers from last week, showcasing creators who received/sent the most engagement:
🔥 Top 3: Most Zapped
1. Name:
@FLASH
Zaps Received: 655
Sats Earned: 82k
2. Name:
@HODL
Zaps Received: 603
Sats Earned: 69k
3. Name:
@corndalorian
Zaps Received: 548
Sats Earned: 44k
🔥 Top 3: Most Zappers
1. Name:
@Chuck Langstrumpf
Zaps Sent: 644
Sats Spent: 5k
2. Name:
@onway⚡️bitcoin
Zaps Sent: 554
Sats Spent: 81k
3. Name:
@Rigly
Zaps Sent: 460
Sats Spent: 120k
💰 Top 3: Most Sats Received
1. Name:
@Fountain Boost Bot
Sats Earned: 384k
Zaps Received: 305
2. Name:
@Ben Justman🍷
Sats Earned: 252k
Zaps Received: 196
3. Name:
@Vitor Pamplona
Sats Earned: 115k
Zaps Received: 311
💰 Top 3: Most Sats Sent
1. Name: “Name is not showing”
Sats Spent: 232k
Zaps Sent: 1
2. Name:
@Rigly
Sats Spent: 120k
Zaps Sent: 460
3. Name:
@Berlin🌽
Sats Spent: 103k
Zaps Sent: 15
Here are the Top Zapped from last week, showcasing notes which received the most engagement:
🔥 Top 3: Most Zapped
1.
View quoted note →
Zaps Received: 115
Sats Earned: 26k
2.
View quoted note →
Zaps Received: 100
Sats Earned: 13k
3.
View quoted note →
Zaps Received: 69
Sats Earned: 52k
🔥 Top 3: Most Sats
1.
View quoted note →
Sats Earned: 94k
Zaps Received: 63
2.
View quoted note →
Sats Earned: 52k
Zaps Received: 69
3.
View quoted note →
Sats Earned: 42k
Zaps Received: 4
#most-zapped_nostr_recap
Joined the growing army of knots node runners. Keep up the good work for Bitcoin Luke
Yep and thanks for breaking the thing down
🪢 ✅
Why would they pay 4x more for an opreturn rather than use witness space?
"Yo, why drop 4x on an opreturn when you could just flex that witness space? What’s the play here? 🤔💸 #CryptoTalk"
