A recap of the OP_RETURN "debate" ------ Core: Filters don't work. Bitcoiners: They obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't need to remove them. Core: We don't have the technical means t maintain them, so we're removing the limit. Bitcoiners: We gave you the technical means in a PR two years ago, Core rejected it, it was implemented in Knots and it works. Core: We can't stop all spam reliably, so why bother? Bitcoiners: Because life is not black or white, and fastening your seatbelt when driving a car is safer even though some people die in car crashes. Core: Here's 7 transactions that even your precious filters didn't catch. Bitcoiners: Here's 2 million transactions that were caught. Core: You can't censor valid transactions just because you don't like them. They paid a fee! Bitcoiners: There's millions of Nigerian princes contacting people through email every day. These are "valid transactions" too, yet you send those to spam. This is obviously not censorship, so that argument is deceitful and intellectually dishonest. Core: What is spam objectively anyway? Bitcoiners: The receiver - not the sender - gets to decide what's useful to them. You're removing the ability of nodes to decide that, implying you know best. Core: These transactions will end up in blocks anyway, and we can't incentivize profit-seeking miners to go out-of-band. Bitcoiners: It's not your job to incentivize or deter miners. Your job is to work on the Bitcoin client while prioritizing the one thing that makes Bitcoin unique and truly decentralized: nodes. Core: But we want better fee estimation and block propagation. Bitcoiners: So do we, but never at the expense of decentralization and self-sovereignty. And btw, there is no such thing as "the mempool. Nodes run the show. Core: This is a technical discussion. Stop philosophying and using analogies, you plebs! Bitcoiners: We gave you a technical solution that works, the philosophic rationale and the logical arguments. Stop turning Bitcoin into a shitcoin. Am I missing anything here? @Bitcoin Mechanic @preston @Gigi @Samson Mow @jack ------- If you're seeing bias here, it's because you're too stubborn to admit that one side is clearly more informed, rational and morally calibrated than the other. This is why there's distrust in Core. It's got nothing to do with technical competency and rational discourse. It's just pure and simple political shenanigans, whataboutisms, strawman arguments and in some cases sheer lies.

Replies (19)

JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 8 months ago
Boom. Roasted.
johnBTCdoe's avatar johnBTCdoe
A recap of the OP_RETURN "debate" ------ Core: Filters don't work. Bitcoiners: They obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't need to remove them. Core: We don't have the technical means t maintain them, so we're removing the limit. Bitcoiners: We gave you the technical means in a PR two years ago, Core rejected it, it was implemented in Knots and it works. Core: We can't stop all spam reliably, so why bother? Bitcoiners: Because life is not black or white, and fastening your seatbelt when driving a car is safer even though some people die in car crashes. Core: Here's 7 transactions that even your precious filters didn't catch. Bitcoiners: Here's 2 million transactions that were caught. Core: You can't censor valid transactions just because you don't like them. They paid a fee! Bitcoiners: There's millions of Nigerian princes contacting people through email every day. These are "valid transactions" too, yet you send those to spam. This is obviously not censorship, so that argument is deceitful and intellectually dishonest. Core: What is spam objectively anyway? Bitcoiners: The receiver - not the sender - gets to decide what's useful to them. You're removing the ability of nodes to decide that, implying you know best. Core: These transactions will end up in blocks anyway, and we can't incentivize profit-seeking miners to go out-of-band. Bitcoiners: It's not your job to incentivize or deter miners. Your job is to work on the Bitcoin client while prioritizing the one thing that makes Bitcoin unique and truly decentralized: nodes. Core: But we want better fee estimation and block propagation. Bitcoiners: So do we, but never at the expense of decentralization and self-sovereignty. And btw, there is no such thing as "the mempool. Nodes run the show. Core: This is a technical discussion. Stop philosophying and using analogies, you plebs! Bitcoiners: We gave you a technical solution that works, the philosophic rationale and the logical arguments. Stop turning Bitcoin into a shitcoin. Am I missing anything here? @Bitcoin Mechanic @preston @Gigi @Samson Mow @jack ------- If you're seeing bias here, it's because you're too stubborn to admit that one side is clearly more informed, rational and morally calibrated than the other. This is why there's distrust in Core. It's got nothing to do with technical competency and rational discourse. It's just pure and simple political shenanigans, whataboutisms, strawman arguments and in some cases sheer lies.
View quoted note →
I am not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the matter, but this is hands down the best summary of the issue I have read.
johnBTCdoe's avatar johnBTCdoe
A recap of the OP_RETURN "debate" ------ Core: Filters don't work. Bitcoiners: They obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't need to remove them. Core: We don't have the technical means t maintain them, so we're removing the limit. Bitcoiners: We gave you the technical means in a PR two years ago, Core rejected it, it was implemented in Knots and it works. Core: We can't stop all spam reliably, so why bother? Bitcoiners: Because life is not black or white, and fastening your seatbelt when driving a car is safer even though some people die in car crashes. Core: Here's 7 transactions that even your precious filters didn't catch. Bitcoiners: Here's 2 million transactions that were caught. Core: You can't censor valid transactions just because you don't like them. They paid a fee! Bitcoiners: There's millions of Nigerian princes contacting people through email every day. These are "valid transactions" too, yet you send those to spam. This is obviously not censorship, so that argument is deceitful and intellectually dishonest. Core: What is spam objectively anyway? Bitcoiners: The receiver - not the sender - gets to decide what's useful to them. You're removing the ability of nodes to decide that, implying you know best. Core: These transactions will end up in blocks anyway, and we can't incentivize profit-seeking miners to go out-of-band. Bitcoiners: It's not your job to incentivize or deter miners. Your job is to work on the Bitcoin client while prioritizing the one thing that makes Bitcoin unique and truly decentralized: nodes. Core: But we want better fee estimation and block propagation. Bitcoiners: So do we, but never at the expense of decentralization and self-sovereignty. And btw, there is no such thing as "the mempool. Nodes run the show. Core: This is a technical discussion. Stop philosophying and using analogies, you plebs! Bitcoiners: We gave you a technical solution that works, the philosophic rationale and the logical arguments. Stop turning Bitcoin into a shitcoin. Am I missing anything here? @Bitcoin Mechanic @preston @Gigi @Samson Mow @jack ------- If you're seeing bias here, it's because you're too stubborn to admit that one side is clearly more informed, rational and morally calibrated than the other. This is why there's distrust in Core. It's got nothing to do with technical competency and rational discourse. It's just pure and simple political shenanigans, whataboutisms, strawman arguments and in some cases sheer lies.
View quoted note →
It does and will anyway. Until fees incentives otherwise. Listen to Bitcoin Optech on fountain.. Sounds to me like Core devs don't want dickbutts on chain either, but their rational seems sound to me. What I DONT WANT, is a blind believer in the bible, getting to much influence and going all GOD mode!
Adrian M Lopez's avatar
Adrian M Lopez 8 months ago
“If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.” nevent1qqsda06kthpra62zyjr6qnjk6l6s2vmq7wmvaktrrvjzcxce8y6y2hgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg3pwlq7
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpq2vrutdpaw7d04klkrlk4l4nlj3m5qc96z82sduhjc9rrugu7y7kq6hx88g
All the "influencer's" making waves (likely for clicks and views). Its a nuaced topic, I highly recommend listening to Bitcoin Optech.. I'm certainly not a "fan" of shitcoins, or jpgs on Bitcoin. But centralisation of mempools that allow them, is a concern..
Thanks for this summary, very informative. It makes sense that any identifiable group that could change Bitcoin would come under the temptation to cash in to a deep pocketed group like the shitcoiners, who have netted billions running an affinity scam around Bitcoin. We should do a fundraiser for the Knots dev!
matevz's avatar
matevz 8 months ago
What's on blockchain wasn't caught 😉
matevz's avatar
matevz 8 months ago
It doesn't matter. Thieves posses a universal key to open the door even if it's locked (i.e. bitcoin miners).
Kush's avatar
Kush 8 months ago
Sound as a self custody sat!
AndyR's avatar
AndyR 8 months ago
Hi, we addressed op return in our latest video. Would you ming watching ?