Replies (51)
We need another Craig Wright to rally against.
I'd be more concerned if there weren't enough people interested to have conflict. It can be annoying, but I think it's good for Bitcoin in the long term.
Lol
Bitcoin probably won’t die, But all these institutions that just loaded up their ETF products probably will care about the negative publicity that will come with people sharing child pornography in OP_RETURN.
I wonder why there's a need to increase op_return's size limit, or more specifically, what's the benefit?
An army without an enemy becomes restless.
Please, one is enough!
Well, if it dies, so be it — no place stays empty for long.
It's all a bunch of unnecessary bullshit. They should have just left it the fuck alone. People could change it if they really wanted to. I haven't seen a compelling reason that justifies all the noise.
😂
I think you tried to kind of create that situation with your recent hit piece didn't you?
why do people do non-currency transactions on it at all? what does it accomplish?
#educateme
technically all transactions are monetary transactions, they are paying the miner to include it in a block, whatever it is.
If you turn Bitcoin into BSV you can become him.
Well, we have one now: Luke.
but why?
I know I sound like a toddler asking like that. is it pointless to add that stuff?
here's an interesting use case
View quoted note →OK I see. thanks!
What isn't? I said several things.
1. I don't think all the noise is necessary either way.
2. Forcing the issue seems pointless since it was just a default. People can change it to whatever they want if it's an option. If there's really no point in a limit then just remove it. Otherwise, it all seems arbitrary to me. (Is this where we disagree?)
3. I haven't seen a compelling reason to make such a fuss over the default. I don't think this is an existential crisis for Bitcoin.
What are we disagreeing on?
Thanks for the link. I'm not technically involved enough to hold a strong opinion either way. On the surface it all seems arbitrary to me as a user. I don't think it's going to kill Bitcoin either way. I generally agree with some points on each side from the user perspective. I also think everyone having an opinion on technical issues produces a fruitless argument with a ton of noise.
I'm happy to be wrong if this whole thing really was worth all the bullshit. I'll give that a read.
Or… the most democratic platform ever created: a fully blown civil war with no deaths; seems like a big win to me.
There always has to be something to argue about
Yup, there's always a crisis. Sometimes we sound like the 24hr news channels we love to hate.
sure if they paid me
Manufactured by an admittedly authoritarian religious nutjob.
yup
What if they were uploading child porn?
Nothinburgers, the low fee problem is a real one but in many many years.
Check out the OpenTimeStamps project.
A decentralized & permissionless time chain has many potential uses. Money is the best one IMO, and without money other uses likely don’t matter… but emergent use cases of a decentralized ledger that are “arbitrary” to Bitcoin’s primary function may not be arbitrary to humanity.
thanks Eric 🤙🎯
Of course, these are good questions to ask.
I read it and thought it over.
While these fears hold value (miner and node centralization), however, the solution presented because of these fears, of increasing op_return to a higher size, is one defeatism and being under the mercy (or boot) of bad miners.
If what will happen is that most large miners will bypass all of the public nodes that are throwing away the bad transactions, so they can get those extra fees, then they'll be facing a bigger threat than the threat of losing out on those extra fees, which is the masses of people that will work with their governments and other agencies to shut down miners (big ones and small ones) for illegally collecting and retaining, processing, and force distribution of illegal data, willingly, that is connected with the transaction. This will result in the biggest financial blow that they can get hit with, and more (prison time) in comparison to just not getting a bit more in fees.
So, will miners fear missing out on potential extra revenue, or will they fear having their whole operation shut down and go to prison? I think the weight difference is clear here.
It seems like, to me at least, the reasons to increase op_return is not good enough, or not a good one at all.
Thank you for sharing that post and informing me on the official reasons of the op_return size increase, which is now deemed not good enough (again, for me at least).
I read through it and understood and concluded with the following (to help you out, but still read through the post yourself of course):
Freakoverse
I read it and thought it over.
While these fears hold value (miner and node centralization), however, the solution presented because of these fears, of increasing op_return to a higher size, is one defeatism and being under the mercy (or boot) of bad miners.
If what will happen is that most large miners will bypass all of the public nodes that are throwing away the bad transactions, so they can get those extra fees, then they'll be facing a bigger threat than the threat of losing out on those extra fees, which is the masses of people that will work with their governments and other agencies to shut down miners (big ones and small ones) for illegally collecting and retaining, processing, and force distribution of illegal data, willingly, that is connected with the transaction. This will result in the biggest financial blow that they can get hit with, and more (prison time) in comparison to just not getting a bit more in fees.
So, will miners fear missing out on potential extra revenue, or will they fear having their whole operation shut down and go to prison? I think the weight difference is clear here.
It seems like, to me at least, the reasons to increase op_return is not good enough, or not a good one at all.
Thank you for sharing that post and informing me on the official reasons of the op_return size increase, which is now deemed not good enough (again, for me at least).
View quoted note →
Exactly. Bitcoin doesn’t die from fees being too high, too low, or from minor policy tweaks. It survives all of that because its fundamentals are sound. The drama just proves that Bitcoiners love to argue more than the network is actually at risk.
The statement commits the fallacy of equivocation by ambiguously shifting the meaning of “monetary transaction.” In the context of Bitcoin, this term typically refers to transfers of value (e.g., sending BTC between parties as a form of payment or exchange). However, the statement redefines it to include any transaction that incurs a fee paid to miners for inclusion in a block, even if the primary purpose is non-monetary, such as embedding arbitrary data without value transfer. This equivocal use of the term makes the argument appear valid when it isn’t.
Is this also an odd year for this odd stabilization in price when historically this would be an up year looking back to 4 years ago.
I think we are about to ramp shit up and they are holding back to try and make the smoothest transition for most of the population.
I think We The People will be placing the Federal Reserve on trial for Breach of Contract in an attempt to settle the debt.
Those dishits were printing money off the books.
Remember Rumsfeild (sp)?
Not a "small policy change", you don't get to decide that Dev Sir
and you do ?
I didn't say anything
But. Ya did.
You're right. I shouldn't post before my morning coffee.
We like retardation levels at ATH.
who stops you from running oldest bitcoin implemention? Bitcoin was unkillable and now its gonna die because you dont like new node version?
what in your opinion is the largest threat to BTC network currently
future generations who have forgotten what problem Bitcoin solves
jb55 is already part of that generation together with the compromised Core devs
They all forgot that Bitcoin is Freedom Money
getting the future to understand will come top down. it wont matter until it effects them or there favorite influencer switches to only using it. i force it by allowing people to pay me less if they choose bitcoin
