Login to reply
Replies (42)
How will I ever get past now 😭
This is what I needed. Thank you.
You can't bro we solved spam
Then what is this? I thought you said it was solved 😭
When bip110 activates have fun raging
What's gonna make me rage if it activates is that now instead of spamming op return the retards are gonna spam unprunable parts of the chain
Nothing stops them doing it now as well, big brainer.
Oh, now it's a filter. Cool. Then you don't have to worry about it.
Good. Maybe then somebody will actually address the problem instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
That already happened for years and Core did nothing to stop it.
Exactly and neither will bip110 despite best efforts. It's almost as if legitamite random bytes and spam random bytes are indistinguishable from one another for a consensus rule
They could’ve acted, but chose not to because they hold that postmodernist view.
If a solution exists why is it not part of bip110?
Hunter Beast is making the technical argument that there are extremely sophisticated attack vulnerabilities which enforcing people to chunk data protects against.
all spam bs aside, 110 prevents those attacks and is necessary
Hunter Beast is making the technical argument that there are extremely sophisticated attack vulnerabilities which enforcing people to chunk data protects against.
all spam bs aside, 110 prevents those attacks and is necessary
i totally understand that there are legitimate reasons to be against 110, but I would also say there legitimate reasons to be for 110 as well.
the clash of steelmen is more competitive that the meme
I don’t get the absurd anti bip110 arguments. It’s like people who repeated mantras during covid — ‘safe and effective’. While demonizing the real independent thinkers
Not demonizing - making jokes about it. It's a bad solution and not worth forking over. If we find a real solution to spam then I'm down to fork
But clearly the data op return size has been blown wide open. By the core devs. ‘Can’t filter everything , so f it, let’s open it wide’? But I don’t believe it’s that innocent. I think it’s been done to benefit the few short term … and is an active serious threat to bitcoin that must be remedied.
The only anti BIP110 views I respect are those obviously wanting to avoid / fearing a fork. I get that.
Valued customer, we are experiencing major issues, the traffic is blocked by a massive 83 byte barrier. I apologize for the inconvenience. Let's drive through anyway
Exactly
Yeooo yes exactly what I was thinking today.
bip110 is not a filter
Exactly. It fails to really filter anything.
bip110 is not a filter
Spot on!
Why is it a bad solution? #asknostr
Idk enough about this shit but one side is clearly more levelheaded while the other is more emotional. Emotionally charged decisions are risky.
The only solution to spam is to make it unprofitable
How does one decide what is financial data? Who is going to make that decision?
Also, the average block size did not really pass the 2MB limit, so one can argue about the real impact ordinals have other then paying miners and keeping the network save.
https://blossom.rikmeijer.nl/00b910056bedd17f82cada9e487062f851ebe64f9863b94e3501aad4e5eaeee0
see 8-10 min mark
.
Michael Saylor Has Zero Respect
via @GrassFedBitcoin @Bitcoin Mechanic
There were major limitations before. To data storage on transactions. Core removed them. BIP110 puts them back and strengthens them. Let’s go!
Anyone not running BIP110 is a fucking bacon
It is. Read the BIP.
Hunter Beast has to dress up like a jungle cat in order to cum. He's a lunatic like the lot of you. You're all too dumb realize he's perfectly fine with spam and using the BIP-110 movement to get what he wants.
But does that make it untrue?
Major? It was only a (easily circumventable) limit of 84k, which you still can configure if you want to. Core only removed the default value.
How will node runners decide? Does the software have to be updated? Does this mean a hard fork for every "cautious change"?
What is part of the resource growth can be actually attributed to spam? Sources?
If legal risks are an issue, pruning might be an option. Or may be only keeping the last block after the initial download and verification of the blockchain. May be there are more intelligent ways of clearing your node of unwanted data, instead of trying to determine what is spam or what is not.
This opens the door to censorship and is by definition an end to the permissionlessness of bitcoin.
I agree that running a node already can have legal risks, although it is a gray area. That already is the case, as the blockchain already contains illegal content. I think it would be more fruitful if efforts are put in to create legal clarity in different jurisdictions. Also, what options are there to find out who out the content there in the first place.
I don't think that it is a logical fallacy. If you create a mechnism by which a judgement is made on the transactions content, that is a slippery slope towards censorship. When we would only have rules on transaction properties, there is no way to filter spam.
Only limiting the op_return is already a possible configuration for node runners.
That sounds like a technical issue that can be solved, of course I am not an expert, but more magical things have been created.
Apparently bip 114 and 116 address this issue for instance. If you ask ai several other options are also proposed.