The UTXO set bloat is a problem that has not been adequately solved imo. Maybe we can disagree whether filters is the solution but it seems undeniable there is a problem: For 7000 BTC (about 750M now but around 300M at time of expenditure) ordinals shitcoiners were able to bloat the UTXO set from 4GB to 12GB. It is more than possible for a state actor to spend 12B or less to get that up to 128GB at which point very few pleb nodes could keep up. At that point centralize nodes and crack down on them as "money transmitters". Paranoid theory? Maybe. But since when do we engineer things for only sunny days? For bitcoin to live up to its promise these vulnerabilities must be addressed. I would love someone to propose a sober and accurate analysis that counters these points. But this is my conclusion right now: The problem HAS NOT been solved. It is only by luck and happenstance that ordinals spamming has slowed down. Bitcoin is fuck you money and it deserves fuck you engineering. Engineers Creed: Little by little subtract Faith and fallacy from fact The illusory from the true And starve upon the residue

Pretending that attacks on bitcoin are fine is very sad to see from Lyn. Of course we all know it's not a threat right now, we are thinking years down the road. This type of low key thinking might be great for views on X, but it's just bullshit here on Nostr.

OP return size doesn't affect UTXO bloat, which was/is the biggest issue. Node-level filtering doesn't realistically affect what gets put into the timechain for consensus transactions that someone is willing to pay for. So I think those who are concerned about those issues and are bearish enough on monetary transactions (i.e. they don't think they'll price those other things out over the long run) should focus on consensus changes. Those likely won't get anywhere either, but it would be less performative.

I referenced the larger volume figure in this case, since intra-entity UTXO consolidations and privacy-related hops are a long-term part of network functionality in terms of taking up some block space. That puts it a little over 1% of Fedwire, as least the last time I ran the numbers which was 2 years ago. Presumably if there are 10x as many entities using on-chain bitcoin in the future, there will be roughly 10x as much demand for intra-entity UTXO consolidation and privacy hops and such as well. But yeah on a strictly inter-entity basis, it' s notably less than 1%. My 2-year-old numbers:

it's not about it being fine or not. Of course it's not "fine". The question is, is the countermeasures effective or not

Lyn..tons of respect for your intellect But don't you think it is hard to appropriately price storing data FOREVER? The issue is fiat agents can bloat the network with NFTs and pass on the fiat mispricing to node runners. The OP RETURN debate can be a bit of a red herring bc it does not adequately address the root problem. BUT there is an unadressed problem introduced by ordinals and it HAS to be addressed. Filter afficionados are directionally correct.

The core Devs don't think there needs any countermeasures.

I'm not sure if that is true. Maybe some of them do think that, I don't know. I think they mostly just have a different opinion on what is effective and what is not.

They mostly have outside VC interests to expand opsec and profit from spamming bitcoin.

who specifically? this seems like a wild claim, but I'm open to beleive it if there are receipts

You can read their social media posts. Guy Swan has made podcasts about it too.

That's not very specific... but thanks anyway, I will try to learn more about it

i think this post describes the disconnect between the two camps perfectly: On one side we have the autists who are like: "this doesn't solve the problem, so let's remove it" on the other side we have the idealists who say: "even if it doesn't work, we have to virtue signal some kind of anti spam message"

btw, your zap address is broken

You need to check for yourself and make up your own mind. It doesn't matter what I think at the end of the day.

There should just two blockchains, one for transactions, and another for everything else.

Yeah agree with that. I kinda understand both sides argument, but I don't think that malicious intent is part of it, at least i haven't seen any evidence of it. that's why i asked for a source for those claims

we already have that, it's called ethirium, but nobody wanna use that trash

Isn't fedwire a rather different aggregating architecture than the layer stack on BTC? And doesn't the fiat/legacy stack have more layers as well? What is maximum TPS for fedwire?