If you think about it, it's rather amusing that we've been arguing for over a decade about how to censor the usage of a censorship resistant network.
Login to reply
Replies (77)
Perhaps we need to tighten up our language and say more precisely that Bitcoin is a censorship resistant *monetary* network, not a general network, then people won't label storing arbitrary, non-monetary data as censorship IMHO
That would have had to been done at genesis but it wasn’t
[Bitcoin] takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle.
Maybe it was implied though.
Censorship is inherent to every node. If not explicit, the hardware limitation itself censors transactions.
It feels like the conflation of censorship resistance and personal sovereignty is being done in bad faith.
Rational people understand that you don't have to accept someone insulting you in your home because that space is yours to do with as you wish. That limitation IS censorship.
It is not the same as censorship as way of permission. The network is resistant to centralization of permission, not that permission doesn't exist on an individual's node.
I think the title of the whitepaper did this but people like to ignore it
nostr is a censorship resistant network, bitcoin is a monetary network
The white paper was about censorship resistant money, not cat pics.
Meh. What is non-monetary data? I mean from an information theory perspective.
Sure, some data blobs that can be decoded into TXT or JPEG are obvious.
But if you see a blob of data and have no clue how to interpret it, how can you claim that it's non-monetary? It could be an anchor for a monetary second layer.
Then why was the first thing stored in the blockchain is non monetary data
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
Exactly it's pretty obvious but I guess @Jameson Lopp will keep gaslighting us nevertheless.
This might be the year it actually puts me over the edge though 😅
What non monetary data was stored in the genesis block?
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
We could standardize them and make sure the node can interpret it, otherwise node rejects it as invalid (maybe?)
Just my own selfish thoughts, I'm happy to pay money for more hardware to store money transactions, it's in my own interest for the money use case to grow, but if half my cost is just storing other people's images for free, I'm not interested in that and would want to reject all of it from my node or maybe it gets even worse and I just give up on node running
It's an auction, he who pays the most fees gets their valid transactions confirmed.
Bullshit, spammy uses of block space will stop once they are priced out by use cases people are willing to spend higher fees for.
Yeah part of the problem is that there's currently negligible demand for block space.
Pretty good point, the genesis block is very special and unspendable, but I see what you're saying
Because it's a timestamp. It's the sames as the notes you add to the payments in your bank app, even Lightning Invoices have that. Just compentary data.
Thinking deeply and adversarially about complex issues is now gaslighting. Got it.
The Internet protocols like TCP/IP are also censorship resistant network but have certain fields for certain data and you can't fill arbitrary data in the field for IP or checksum. You may want the liberty to use shitcoins on Bitcoin's network but its not what the community wants.
A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System? Yeah I’d say it’s more than implied, it’s the definition.
Cash --> Cache --> "a place to store valuable things"
Think, supply-cache, weapons-cache, data-cache.
Value is subjective, and ironically, cash leaks value more than anything; it's a very poor incarnation of a cache.
Bitcoin is money and you are an asshole.
Aren't we using the TEXT field in DNS records for lightning addresses?
There are certain fields for certain data. OP_RETURN has 80 Bytes for arbitrary data.
You can't put the IP field for other data but the IP.
That's not a problem at all. It means people can still send onchsin cheaply if they want. It proves lightning is doing it's job.
I don't think it's gaslighting and lopp is one of the last people who would act in bad faith, besides maybe luke lol
We can disagree on how software should work without attacking each other I hope 🙏
The word cash may have evolved from cache, but evolution generally happens for a reason. They are 2 distinct words. Bitcoin is not a P2P electronic cache system.
This evolution happened because the existing words "currency" & "dollar" weren't inspiring enough confidence in people, so the word "cache"was hijacked to imply "dollar means value."
Pretty shitty reason IMO. I consider satoshi's use of the word in the title a perpetuation of its confusing history.
When you discover that your software doesn't work as you intended, this take is akin to saying that changing the function names will make it all better. When in fact, just changing how you talk about Bitcoin doesn't matter to the people attempting to exploit it, who don't care what narratives you spin about it.
That's the meaning of an adversary.
Bitcoin is
censorship resistant MONEY
Not
censorship resistant STORAGE
I agree it's not clear that Lopp is an enemy, but it is clear he's a shitcoiner.
That is a wrong avenue.
There is a movie called "What's a woman?" and because of their agenda some people can't answer that simple question.
It is known what is monetary transaction data like it is known what is IP data for the IP protocol. The creators of The Internet did not allow to put jpegs in the IP field.
sos/diffday
Amusing? Maybe for a person with a high time preference who is willing to sell their soul and abandon the ethos of Bitcoin, it is amusing.
Personally…I want to use Bitcoin as a censorship resistant monetary network.
If I want a censorship resistant banana network then I will work hard to build that separately.
I don’t want bananas in my Bitcoin node. I want them in my banana node.
If you went to the EITF and said some people are passing payload data in the VLANID field of TCPIP packets they would laugh and call them an idiot for doing that.
If you said that proved we needed to completely remove the size limit from the payload field of packets they'd laugh and call you an idiot.
If you screamed censorship because they didn't give you your way they'd tell you to make sure the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
They'd be right. There is a field for passing whatever data you want. It has a limit for perfectly reasonable technical reasons. We raise it as hardware improves but 9216 is fine for now. If we make it unlimited the price of networking hardware would be too much and too many people would be excluded from the internet.
“You don’t know”
“Why do you care”
Dismissiveness reminiscent of the American Left
I understand the point you’re trying to make but this has been a bad look
Exactly.
Censorship will always be on the minds of many
Bitcoin depends on tx fees to incentivize miners.
any ideas about how they will be compensated in the future?
tail emission and dynamic block sizes fix this
the whole conversation would be much less intense.
Let's leave the code alone except for security/compatibility updates. Things are ok like this.
Yes. Demand for block space will increase organically as all 8 billion people on earth are onboarded and will want to at least control a few utxo's over their lifetime
Good point about individual choice. That's ignored entirely too much in this discussion.
However, censoring all spam from the **timechain** going forward through filters, is not gonna work. Putting some pressure on it through simple OP_RETURN settings may help, or running a massively filtered implementation of the Bitcoin software. But if you want it relatively absent from the timechain completely, we're talking a consensus rules change... and a new exploit might be found again anyway or an old one made worse.
To me the only effective solution that is also ethical and LONGLASTING, is that everyone gets to run their own OP_RETURN policy and filters and such, which they already do (but I can see the argument that this change to Core will sneak a lot stuff in without proper discussion or consideration of the purpose of the network and the reason for running the node, which violates some of the expectations some noderunners have, shame on you guys for not having a good faith discussion about the ethics here),
AND that the discussion converges on a further way to make spam ***COSTLY***, WITHOUT incentivizing slipstream to the point that it becomes the de facto method of bitcoin transaction submission. No one in the mainstream discussion I have seen has yet discussed methods of doing this simple approach in enough detail to understand what the tradeoffs are, where the sweet spot might be, how long the default OP_RETURN could be to allow arbitrary data, how to make OP_RETURN the default way of inputting arbitrary data so that spam costs a full vbyte, or other similar kinds of tweaks that individual users can make and that Core can make as the current de facto Bitcoin implementation.
Yes but money converges to one asset.
Yep, and if the demand wanes for a while, miners that can't afford to stay in business will die off, leaving more competitive miners in their place. It's always gonna be there.
You know this isn’t about censorship so stop gaslighting everyone into thinking it is. It’s about not wanting arbitrary data on the nodes WE run. You don’t get to decide what goes on MY node!
I want Bitcoin to be money. And nothing else. If Bitcoin fails, we all fail.
all evidence to the contrary.
you literally just said people were using LN instead.
and >90% of people don't self custody anyway.
so thats hopium and not predicated on any actual real world usage.
I don't get one point.
Why completely remove the limit, and not just raise it to 160 and see what will happen ? (as it was down in 2014)
from 80 limit to unlimited... there is a clear difference (it is really an extremist vision).
Surprising and unexpected usage will for sure appear.
Interesting view :
BeInCrypto
OP_RETURN Limit Debate: Peter Todd’s Proposal Stirs Tensions
Peter Todd's OP_RETURN size limit proposal sparks controversy, dividing Bitcoin Core developers and the community.
Yeah if I were in charge of this decision for Core, I would double it and just get on with life, and see what happens. And maybe actually discuss things.
Pay for ExpressVPN with Bitcoin. No names, no banks — just pure privacy.
#nostr #bitcoin #damus
ExpressVPN: Best VPN Service for Speed & Privacy in 2025
You don't use ln instead of on chain, you use it in addition to onchain because you need 2 transactions to open and then close channels. Idk how many more transactions are taking place on lightning, but I've already zapped or been zapped like 20 times today, when I was averaging 1 transaction per week in 2016 when the blocks were full.
Tail emissions = inflation.
Fuck. That. 💯
💯
A hard cap is retarded monetary policy.
sorry not sorry
Then go use one of the literal millions of other altcoins that don't have a hard cap.
Oh, they all suck? And you wanna make bitcoin like them?
And who exactly is retarded?
I'm always curious if Bitcoin have tail emission in the first place, let's say 1 sat, how it will evolve differently until today or in the long run?
Difficulty will drop, it'll be lucrative once again to mine and we off go again.
The beauty is in its unstructured simplicity.
Because it's a discrepancy between relay policy and consensus.
Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
I think what you mean is
if theres no demand for block space,
the miner's margin become razor thin
and only the MOST competitive miners can afford to stay in business
which means the net amount of energy protecting the network *decreases
The detail that caught my attention was that I would not be able to determine what is in my own mempool. It’s my hardware, and my mempool. I came to bitcoin because it offered a way to do what I wanted with my own money, and it reduced the ability of others to dictate what I can do with my own legal, and ethically gained property. Removing my ability to control my own node is a huge step backwards. For me, this is the vital point
Entao desceram os amalequitas e os cananeus, que habitavam na montanha, e os feriram, derrotando-os ate Horma.
#Entao #desceram #os #amalequitas #e #os #cananeus, #que #habitavam #na #montanha, #e #os #feriram, #derrotando-os #ate #Horma.
Luego descendieron a los amalequitas y a los cananeos, que habitaban la montaa, y los hirieron, derrotndolos a Horma.
#Luego #descendieron #a #los #amalequitas #y #a #los #cananeos, #que #habitaban #la #montaa, #y #los #hirieron, #derrotndolos #a #Horma.
Ensuite, ils sont descendus les Amalequites et les Cananens, qui habitaient la montagne, et les ont blesss, les battant Horma.
#Ensuite, #ils #sont #descendus #les #Amalequites #et #les #Cananens, #qui #habitaient #la #montagne, #et #les #ont #blesss, #les #battant # #Horma.
Quindi scendettero gli Amalequiti e i Cananei, che abitavano la montagna e li ferirono, sconfiggendoli con Horma.
#Quindi #scendettero #gli #Amalequiti #e #i #Cananei, #che #abitavano #la #montagna #e #li #ferirono, #sconfiggendoli #con #Horma.
Then they descended the Amalequites and the Canaanites, who inhabited the mountain, and wounded them, defeating them to Horma.
#Then #they #descended #the #Amalequites #and #the #Canaanites, #who #inhabited #the #mountain, #and #wounded #them, #defeating #them #to #Horma.
Dann stiegen sie die Amalquiten und die Kanaaniter ab, die den Berg bewohnten, und verwundeten sie und besiegten sie zu Horma.
#Dann #stiegen #sie #die #Amalquiten #und #die #Kanaaniter #ab, #die #den #Berg #bewohnten, #und #verwundeten #sie #und #besiegten #sie #zu #Horma.
Kisha wakashuka Waamalequites na Wakanaani, ambao walikaa mlima, na kuwajeruhi, wakawashinda kwa Horma.
#Kisha #wakashuka #Waamalequites #na #Wakanaani, #ambao #walikaa #mlima, #na #kuwajeruhi, #wakawashinda #kwa #Horma.
Kemudian mereka turun ke Amalequites dan orang Kanaan, yang mendiami gunung, dan melukai mereka, mengalahkan mereka untuk Horma.
#Kemudian #mereka #turun #ke #Amalequites #dan #orang #Kanaan, #yang #mendiami #gunung, #dan #melukai #mereka, #mengalahkan #mereka #untuk #Horma.
This isn’t about one-off transactions. It becomes quite clear, very quickly, what VC spammers are doing and thus easy enough to filter their transactions. Taking an adversarial stance against this data storage garbage would quickly kill large scale future spammers due to the risk involved. They would fuck off back to solana or wherever
Lopp motivations:
Same logic as "if you support free speech, then I can come to your house and scream insults in your face any time I want."
Agreed. Real money is too important.
What’s next for casa, solana support?
🎯
These are not the droids you are looking for...
1. Bitcoin is in part censorship resistant because of the limitations placed on it from the start.
2. Striving to preserve those restraints is NOT censorship by any means.
Your saying is verbal slight of hand.
No one goes there anymore... Its too crowded.
Then you might misunderstand that since there could be no previous block hash to include Satoshi did this as proof. It was monetary data in that respect. It was proof the Genesis block was not faked.
Cheers!