Replies (10)
This is why knots people are effectively asking for bitcoin to be outlawed. They don’t realize it’s already there. And they’ll call for bitcoin to be dismantled in favor of xyztrumpgov coin that “can’t” store csam.
Dude, they are literally simply asking for a setting to remain as it was for over a decade.
And bitcoin was obviously working just fine that way.
You are totally turning truth by 180°.
I don’t agree with core jumping from 80 bytes to 100,000…but eventually bitcoin will need this ability for zero knowledge proofs for layer 2 networks. I think they should have gone to 160 bytes and just watched and waited to see how it was used and what the consequences are.
But please don’t forget, the real issue here isn’t about data, it’s about mining centralization…the status quo guarantees miner centralization in the long run.
miner centralization only matters when one of the pools reach majority.
I don't believe that will ever happen. I can imagine that let's say 20% of home heaters use miners soon(tm). That's enormous amount of PoW. And Datum is a good way to give back control over templates to those miners and to fight centralization.
BTC users won't join any pool nearing control.
This core/knots fight is silly but I don't understand why core devs are so afraid of alternative client. It worked well for bittorrent, edonkey and many other protocols.
Yes, they should have stayed put, or slightly increased the limits. But they didn't act rationally and totally insecure, pushing this through just to prove a point.
ZKPs don't need that much data; fun fact, Citrea, cited as ine of the beneficiaries, rather uses Inscriptions instead of the op_return. Core burned all their social capital, and it was all for nothing.
At the same time, they are stalling what would be the right way to enable proper two-way pegs and thus scale bitcoin: CTV+CSFS.
It all makes no sense 🤷 (unless one subscribes to the theory this was a deliberate sabotage)
Bitcoin doesn’t need zero knowledge proofs. And the status quo does not in any way guarantee miner centralization. You’re just assuming these are truths without any way to verify them.
Nobody uses inscriptions on purpose. They do so because opreturn requires slipstream payments and they don’t want to pay slipstream and would rather pay more to stuff it in opreturn (out of band payments cause miner centralization)
Let me spell this out more slowly for you: out of band payments ( like via slipstream ) won’t go to big and small miners alike.
Do you see it now? Big miners get paid more and can stay profitable longer as revenues decrease.
I understand your flawed logic no matter how condescendingly you present it.
Slipstream has extra cost for users and for MARA to maintain. This idea that slipstream is going to take over the mining industry is another assumption that cannot be verified.
Your arguments read like someone who’s recently got into technical discussions about bitcoin after reading a few dozen tweets on X
HFSP. If you can’t understand it or don’t believe me I don’t have time to explain it to you.
Don’t get me wrong, I run knots. But I know it doesn’t matter what I run and I know core making this change doesn’t matter either. Shocking but relay policy isn’t consensus.
