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, 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. 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?
-------
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.
- Hodling like i mean it
Replies (20)
Very nuanced observation. Appreciated! 👏
Ralphie
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, 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. 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?
-------
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.
- Hodling like i mean it
View quoted note →
TLDR
Core lost core values
Based 🤘
A key point that I think is being overlooked in the debate it the difference between developers and maintainers of the project.
Developers are free to do as they please, write whatever code they want, and to submit whatever pull request they want.
Maintainers are supposed to only be stewards. They should not merge code that is has mot gained general consensus among users of the codebase.
If developers really really want to remove the OP_RETURN filters, they should be the ones forking bitcoin-core and pushing for its use. Only then after sufficient acceptance should it be considered for merging back into core.
tl;dr bitcoin-core should not be the bleeding edge of development but should be the slower, hardened and measured approach to change.
Personally I think I am for the change but definitely not how the process is playing out.
I get it - the op return drama is to get ctv/csfs activated - To *avoid* the op return pr.
@Kenshin 🥷 … Interesting take
Seems pretty accurate.
Summary excellent friend
Another note about spam
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq0mhp4ja8fmy48zuk5p6uy37vtk8tx9dqdwcxm32sy8nsaa8gkeyqqsww2dkpk7atrwkt93ms0ez27vuukshl9lkg9w3fm0y00enf9vjpsqhx7sx8
This is gonna sound biased, but I don't think this is biased in any way. Just a fair and balanced recap.
Well done man!
Generalizing that it is "Bitcorners" stating the said comments is misleading sir. Certainly not all "Bitcoiners" stating this.
Changing the word Bitcoiners to: Knotscoiners, People on DorseysDimes, Dorsey paid instigators, MechanicCatEatercoiners something like that would be more representative of the ones speaking loudest.
Simply stating some Bitcoiners. Many Bitcoiners saying nothing at all. Just watching from the outside at high school drama show.
Feels like we are seeing manufactured drama. Like the Black Lives Matter of Bitcoin.
But what do I know just a dumb Bitcoiner?
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpq2vrutdpaw7d04klkrlk4l4nlj3m5qc96z82sduhjc9rrugu7y7kq6hx88g
You forgot one... Core used GitHub's filtering to block users while arguing against filters... 😅
Without understanding the technical stuff, the Core guys come off as shady.
Ralphie
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, 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. 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?
-------
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.
- Hodling like i mean it
View quoted note →
Let's run Bitcoin knots ✌️
No one gets to speak for all bitcoiners. We have diverse opinions.
You don't get to speak for all bitcoiners.
