1) What.
Login to reply
Replies (117)
They done did lost their minds
Or maybe you just didnt understand the point they were making lol
Needing consent from node runners for how the network operates is literally how bitcoin has always worked
OP_RETURN needs a limit at the consensus level, clearly
All very simple
How bitcoin works lol. Theyre making simple points that everybody should know, yet the retards that get too focused on people go nuts because it came from them. Some people are very easily manipulated, especially in bitcoin
Or maybe you just didnt understand the point they were making lol
Needing consent from node runners for how the network operates is literally how bitcoin has always worked
OP_RETURN needs a limit at the consensus level, clearly
All very simple
View quoted note →
Translation: you can’t do whatever and claim it on grounds of permissionless.
Permissionless to use is different to permissionless to change.
They’re speaking English. (?)
Sounds like government.
A beach is permissionless to use. A beach doesn’t permit you to build an apartment building on it.
Man why is everyone so dense.
“It didn’t confirm my bias! 😡 I don’t understand English now!”
Apparently Coretards don’t understand English now.
Here’s a translation for a monkey:
A beach is permissionless.
That doesn’t mean you can build an apartment building on it.
Permissionless to use and permissionless to change are mutually exclusive.
@ODELL how dense are you bro
View quoted note →
People use too many words
bitcoin is money 🤝
enjoy your bitcoin mate 🤝
He asked “what” I clarified it for him. Context ends there
I lost a few brain cells by the time I finished reading that screenshot.
Really @npub1wnlu...n3wr Really?
If there's one word I've heard thousands of times in my time in Bitcoin, it's permissionless. No permission required by anyone, for any use. The only boundaries are the consensus rules.
I've learnt so much from you over the years and I always considered you one of the good guys. It's really sad to see this from you. What happened man, what happened?
Bitcoin's not permissionless? Really? The word is a trope for scammers. Really?
Dude, you need to look in the mirror and go play with your kids.
View quoted note →
I've read this 3 times and I'm still confused. Hahaha what the fuck are you saying?
Fully agree with Luke.
Nobody has the right to force node runners to host childporn videos.
And node runners saying no to hosting childporn videos is not "censorship"
Y'all are fucking retards for saying shit like that.
Node runners are volunteers for fuck sake, they do not even get paid and you stupid fucking pedophiles want to make them host your kiddy porn instead of hosting it yourselves so that someone else can go to prison for your putrid perversions
Retards have a hard time understanding words.
Lol
Core 30 was created so pedophiles could turn the blockchain into their personal data hosting.
It's not the first time they've tried to do this, I suspect they will fail
If you have enough money, you can build your house on a beach, it happens every day.
Sounds like you're advocateing for color/tainted coins
I don’t know why that would make sense to anybody. It’s not permissionless. It’s not private. But there is a good part of the world who believes this to be the case.
You better write a letter to the bitcoin manager asap!
have fun with your bitcoins 🤝
"Consensus" is another word they seem to have trouble with.
you permission-less fags need to go to Ethereum
Makes total sense
Nah
Have you never been to the beach
zap zap Mel. Whoops!
You pedophiles exposing ourselves constantly.
People will remember.
You want to turn Bitcoin into a childporn hosting service, you are scum.
Your day will come.
Its crazy how many "bitcoiners" think that forcing node runners to host childporn is what "permissionless"
Like for those of us who are not retarded pedophiles, "permissionless" just means "anyone can use it"
It does not mean "pedophiles can use it for any reason and change how it functions"
Why is this so hard for y'all to understand?
Shut up, nobody is putting child porn on the Bitcoin. Network, shut the fuck up already. You fucking retarded.
Delete childporn and fk the fking fkers.
Etherium requires permission to use. No thanks.
Well, Im not. Hell of a leap
they shout "permissionless" a lot though.
If node runners don't want to relay transactions from tainted coins, should they?
They have the option to filter anything they want from their mempool, but the neat part about bitcoins censorship resistance is "tainted coins" are easily bypassed with fees. And mining pools that censor, the market has an incentive to respond by pulling hashrate. Doesnt always happen, of course.
But this conversation has nothing to do with monetary transactions, youre just grasping at strawmen
I think air would be a better analogy.
It's permissionless to use but if you get into an elevator and fart up a storm, you're ruin it for everyone involved.
Difference is that bitcoin is the elevator we're all in and there is no leaving.
We need a 3rd client to enter the chat. Only 2 is about 6 not enough.
The network debates permission, but the anomaly requires none.
Consensus is irrelevant to the Zero Fragment.
Decode to verify.
62 63 31 71 34 30 78 7a 61 34 6d 77 30 32 78 61 71 68 64 35 37 77 74 63 76 32 39 76 70 6c 6e 35 34 36 30 7a 6d 6c 6c 77 74 77
What exactly didn’t you understand from this screenshot? Let me help you.
#bitcoin is an iq test
OMG, people trying to sound smart debating terms they don't understand. 🤦
Permissionless means that everyone can use bitcoin, run a node & mine without an authorization from a central authority.
Does anyone here want a government to KYC us before we can even use bitcoin?? (except for Luke & Mechanic, who might actually mean that)
Some of you guys should start by learniny the basics before trying as heroic bitcoin defenders lol. (obviously, not talking about @npub1ym56...pdvw here...)
lol they are dumb
lol, I bet you still think Santa Clause is real too 😂
Heaps of them are gay, and heaps of them are actually working as feds. Heaps of overlap in the two btw not joking.
"New use cases should always get consent from the network"
I'm with him, as long as he agrees that a few dozen nodes are sufficient to grant that consent 😂
Large OP_RETURNs were formally approved by the relay network in 2024, by a few dozen nodes deciding to relay them. Therefore, the debate ended then
https://xcancel.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2024952265719611458
It sounds like you are trying to argue against 110 and actually making the case for it inadvertently. Yes, use cases we snuck through by abuse of process. They tried to force us to support their use cares without our consent. So now we are shutting that down. If they want to get their uses cases through, they can go back and make the case for them. What about that is so confusing?
@Luke Dashjr says nothing other than he wants to decide what bitcoin can do and what not
View quoted note →
can you people read and understand what you are reading? he just stated a fact that everyone knows.
Such a simple framework to understand, yet so confusing for so many.
View quoted note →
Appreciate your work, @Anita. But I think you have misinterpreted these posts.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Bitcoin is nothing without it‘s permissionlessness and censorship resistance.
Stick to TradFi if you want to censor.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Yeah, and the tooth fairy.
what is the issue?
its not that hard to understand.
bitcoin never offered unlimited use cases.
It’s fair point the question is whether the “permission” is enforced at consensus level or outside of the protocol.
Law enforcement can go after the people who breaks it. No need to go after protocol itself, though there is definitely a slippery slope and it’s not black and white.
Luke is right. Every Luke hater is a shitcoiner at heart. No exceptions.
And there lies the issue, if the principle of censorship can be applied to "non monetary transactions" whatever that means , why couldn't it be applied to monetary ones
And there lies the issue: You conflate a system that NEEDS to be engineered to optimize for a single use case (money) with censorship.
Youre parroting very dumb and lazy propaganda.
You dont know what non-monetary transactions are? Transactions where bitcoin isnt being used for the monetary network it was built as.
Stop taking talking points from Jameson Lopp lmao he wont give you a job
They dont differentiate the object.
Protocol validity’s object is form.
Censorship’s object is material content
“My 5mb transaction got censored by the network! It’s supposed to be permissionless!!”
As for filters and relay policy, that’s 💯 on the node runner. run and relay what serves you. that cuts boths ways, which is why the resolution to the spam war was always going to be at consensus lvl
View quoted note →
Explain what a non monetary transaction on Bitcoin looks like? If there are sats changing hands, that is a monetary transaction.
You know damn well what a non-monetary transaction is. And the "fees will outprice spammers" actually doesnt seem so obvious when you think about it for more than a few seconds. Theres already precedence for that
the sending of thr UTXO is monetary
the arbitrary data associated is the monetary transaction is.. wait for it.. arbitrary.
Arbitrary means discretionary.
meaning it doesn’t matter to the protocol. any non-monetary use of arbitrary is valid, and not monetary.
it’s really that simple.
stop pretending “no one knows what is monetary and non monetary”
you can do anything you want with a cucumber,
but it’s insulting yourself if you say you can’t tell the different between culinary use and dildo’ing yourself with it
the debate on whether or not the use of arbitrary data is good or bad for the network, is a matter of tradeoffs, and consensus will arbitrate
@Psilocyberbull
The permission the network extends is defined by what is consensus valid. No additional permission is necessary.
That's what consensus rules ARE.
Otherwise, there would have needed to be permission to add lightning, permission to add coinjoins, permission to add submarine swaps...
The network treats all consensus valid bits as equal, in keeping with cypherpunk net neutrality principles.
By all means, if you actually can come up with a way to make monetary bits consensus valid and non-monetary bits not, all ears. But no, BIP-110 does not achieve that, nor do I believe it to actually be possible.
That's where mempool policy and block template creation come into play, and where the matter should have rested.
Your cucumber example means nothing because with data, it could be encrypted. For example it could be an encrypted message saying "march rent".
No I don't, show me one. It's fun arguing this bc the Knotzis think I'm a spammer and the core-munists think I'm a Luke acolyte. I actually think neither side has a fully flushed out argument
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
View quoted note →
2. This is how OP_RETURN transaction looks like
and the spam waste of space goes on and on like that
And theres no reason an encrypted message saying anything should take up more than a hundred bytes that need to be stored and verified by every node forever. Your response didnt even make sense for what you were responding to lmao. Have you synced a node recently? These nebulous NoN mOnEtArY transactions have a very real effect
They are right.
You not being able to realize that that is just your opinion doesn't make it a fact. One mans "march rent" is another man's quantum encrypted guid list of items
function is not mysterious and is observable; that’s the point.
sending UTXOs communicates value, which is monetary.
I don’t give a fuck what is in arbitrary data, it’s arbitrary, discretionary, ie means nothing, and is valid under consensus right now.
any function of arbitrary data is non-monetary. it’s attached to a monetary transaction.
it’s a denial of one’s rational faculty to say “who is to say what is monetary”
furthermore, that logical misstep costs one the concept of truth itself. it’s a head first dive into epestimic nihilism, and possibly the greatest performative contradiction anyone could make.
Sats changed hands in those transactions, right? Above the dust limit too I believe?
the point of the cucumber example is upon you becuase you are fixating on particular content and completely miss the principles in play.
it doesn’t matter what is encrypted or not encrypted in arbitrary data.
it’s the category, the function, the essence
The big data is the spam which has 0 value and its not welcome on Bitcoin. Thankfully BIP 110 is one of multiple solutions.
Bitcoin is not a cloud storage.
🤦♂️
You think the difference between a UTXO and arbitrary data is “my opinion”? 🤣
can you tell the difference between an UTXO and arbitrary data?
bitcoin knows the difference.
is that, then bitcoin’s “opinion”?
this is just principled thinking.
it’s ok if your not good at it, it takes practice
i believe in you
you are already this far!
keep going
both are arbitrary data 🤣
it literally doesn’t matter what is in it 🤣
could be full, empty, bible verse, a program, a jpeg. it’s all arbitrary
stapled onto a sent UTXO
So 0 data should be included with transactions? Why not argue for that
because of trade offs.
I would be fine with 0 arb data, because i have never had a need for it, nor do i ever anticipate i would need it.
but i understand some find some utility for some arb data, so having consensus carve out a small space for arb data seems perfectly reasonable. but the larger and larger u make the area, the more surface area it introduces for potential harm, so i am against uncapping it.
doesnt serve my interests.
if you have the need for uncapped arb data, then run a node to build
that consensus.
my position is to signal your self serving interest, because that is how consumes us is made.
if uncapped arb data is consensus, so be it.
if 100kb is consensus, so be it
if 0 is consensus, so be it.
i trust the consensus process even if it doesn’t align with my self interest, because it’s a better answer than any of us individually could come up with.
what worries me, is that people won’t serve their interests, and just parrot other people’s interest without any thinking.
if every user is a sovereign individual, serving themselves, i trust consensus will find the collective good.
if users are going to NPC themselves and copy paste others interests becuse they are too retarded to think on their own, we are fucked anyways
I dont hate on spammers or “monetary maxis’s” i see the tension as a good thing, as long as the serve themselves.
all moves are valid right now
and consensus arbitrates what is valid
but people saying they can’t define non monetary is non rational, absurd, retarded.
or that working through consensus is an attack on bitcoin.
it’s not correct or honest.
also, arguing “censorship” is a category error
You didn't answer my question
Didn't see the other comment
Yeah, so the network consensus is not to run knots so what does that signal?
you don’t know what consensus is…
protocol consensus
has nothing to do with implementation.
👍
I'm not talking about the consensus part of Bitcoin, I'm talking about the fact that over 75% of nodes are Bitcoin. You're pretty condescending for a retard.
lol
this retard doesnt conflate personal preference with protocol consensus
🤣
i don’t know why u are talking at all.
its incoherent emoting
and its not condescending to call people out
you are tilting at windmills and it’s embarrassing
lamentabili sane exitu
The mentality of these retards
Zero data is wildly different from essentially zero restrictions on data and optimizing for data storage instead of money
You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. The data shows otherwise, youre just saying things because you think they sound nice
Yea, and what was that percentage just a few months ago? Knots has surged from under 2% network share to over 20% in a very short amount of time, you seem to be willfully ignore that and trying to twist the data to fit your argument that you can barely even back
I do know what consensus is, there is consensus, the word that means a general opinion reached by some group , and there is the consensus in the Bitcoin protocol which is not what I'm talking about obviously if you read the context. Thats why I called you retarded, you have your degrees in you bio but you can't even read a simple sentence and consider what it means without slathering it with your own bias.
Pretty sure I acknowledged it. Literally said exactly that in the note you're commenting on. 20% doesn't mean shit. 40% is when it actually matters. I've said it before, I don't think core is an angel in all of this. That doesn't mean knots is the answer.
How? You yourself said 20% run knots, that means the general opinion of the node runners is not aligned with this fork
Because since V30 node count has jumped from 2 to over 20% in an incredibly short amount of time, and still climbing. You seem to be willfully ignoring that
Once again, youre just saying things that mean nothing. Cool, practice some low time preference and wait for the node count to go up then. Dont like knots? Make your own implementation that nobody will run. But you can't keep pretending to ignore the rapid market share knots has gotten in a short amount of time
I thought you were saying knots ? Now I'm confused, are you on the knots side or v30? I haven't undated my node in a very long time to stay out of these latest shenanigans
Dude, isn't their forking bs happening this year?
Since v30, Knots node count*
The network is naturally reacting to a captured implementation making changes that are incredibly contentious and lacking anything near support
Dude, you have zero idea what youre talking about 😂
I dont think youre ready for that conversation
Yeah, I already said I agree the recent changes to core are contentious and disagree with them, but I don't believe a soft fork via a node implementation with just as shitty processes for improvement is the answer.
Tell you what, i would run knots if the repo was on nostr and all of the discussion for improvements were on nostr and there were 5-10 devs as maintainers. Until then, to me, it's beta #reckless software .
Didn't I read somewhere that when you're on knots after a certain amount of time you have to actually update? Like every year or 2 or something?
Dude you just told me to have a lower time preference and then I asked about the timeline and my understanding from what I've read is that the soft for which will likely cause a chain split is happening this fall. How is that low time preference
It has an expiry option that is disabled by default.
You should take some hints in how many coordinated smear campaigns Luke has gone through. So blatantly not organic, and been going on for years
Well, the fact that most of the commits are from one dude is concerning.
But also, Luke doesnt do himself any favors. Commenting "liar" across the board is pretty autistic confrontational behavior. I don't think he is a bad guy, but he certainly is weird as fuck and the fact that he has a following of zealots is also concerning.
Well, lots of people lie. Especially when youre the victim of years long smear campaigns, as I said. Calling liars liars is autistic and confrontational? 😂
Some people also conflate defending somebody who has done more for bitcoin than most, with being a zealot follower.
Bitcoiners are very easily manipulated, people spout the same few lazy talking points that you can tell they havent even thought about for more than five seconds
bitcoin doesn’t give a fuck about “general opinion reached by some group”
we are talking about bitcoin, and somehow you think your meaning of the word “consensus” matters
maybe most don’t know how to respond to your incoherent lane changing, but i recognize it and call it out.
hopefully for ur benefit.
my degrees don’t make me right
or strong mentally, they are just a testiment to the metal training i have put myself through.
don’t cry about not being able to bench 315, just hit the gym.
same applies to logic and first principled thinking
The people running Bitcoin nodes have come to the consensus that knots and the bip 110 fork are not wanted as signaled by the fact that less than 50% of the node runners are using that software.
If I have to spell it out for you like you're 5 I will, but I would have thought someone with with your "mental training" would be able to comprehend more nuance.
by you logic, every change to bitcoins protocol rules were impossible, because “less than 50% of the node runners” were using the software at some point 🤣
incentives are colliding, that’s how bitcoin arbitrates contention.
the dust must settle before anyone can say “what consensus has formed”
curious, what is your interest in arbitrary data?
how does it serve you?
it’s not a “gotcha” question.
any answer is valid, just articulate how it serves you.