Replies (42)
Yes, but the "Republican" argument can also be the anarchist argument: "I will not be forced to sponsor things I disagree with, therefore if you want to utilize my property, you first must follow my rules."
It cannot be anarchist argument because even in restricting the rule set they still distort the fee market. You haven't fixed the root of the problem which is the "governmental" interference itself. This is at best Libertarian and we all know how that works out.
Think of it this way. Believing in property rights allows you to hold cash and nobody can force you to spend it. But the government can still print it, which is the actual problem. In this original analogy, the "government" printed block space.
"Tight" as in, the way it was intended to be used?
Would you say it's a "tightening" of policy in a gold standard to not overprint coupons?
Fee markets are driven my human preference. A majority who adopts rules restricting the use of their property, and limits the definition of what money they agree to trade in, is not a government. Prices are effected by these agreed-upon rules. It is true anarchist, self-sovereign, market-driven rules that flow out of this collaborative network of nodes who represent the choice of those who transact in their concensus-money. It is not "Democrat" or "Republican" it is "state" or "non-state". I am not saying BIP110 is either state or non-state, but the infiltration by the owner-class and state covert operations into the core team does represent the will of the state, and their anti-concensus behavior reflects an exercise of power under the cover of darkness, against the will of those who depend on them to reflect their collective will. BIP110 is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage done by the state.
Consensus is the intended use.
Prgrammable money is the intended use.
While I understand your perspective, it is still hinted by elements of force. The root problem is the fee market being manipulated by discounting certain bytes (via weight unit measurement) at one-fourth the cost as other bytes when they are both physically on people's nodes.
Now you can say that people are complicit by running the code, but I would also say then you should call everyone a statist because they're complicit with the state's demands as well.
I'm talking about the intended purpose of OP_RETURN which is return zero when added to the stack, which in layman's terms means do not relay to the network.
I agree with you.
There is a clear problem with spam in the current state of bitcoin, and it was created with the segway/taproot upgrades.
I agree that this should be handled by fixing the root problem, and your suggestion seems valid.
however this will be a much deeper change to bitcoin and we are in an urgency situation. we need to fix as much as we can ASAP
I see bip110 as that imediate "fix", and there will be one year (the temporary vigency) to address, discuss, and try to agree on a better fix.
I see bip110 as the best path for bitcoin NOW (as opposed to doing nothing until a better solution is found) and I support it as such.
Bitcoin script is not relay policy. It's consensus. Op return means stop evaluating the Script in the script interpreter.
My first note got eaten by relay. But That's why I said "in laymen's terms" a script interpreter telling the node a transaction is invalid while part of consensus ALSO falls within relay policy. Same as nodes not relaying say, duplicate transactions, for example.
You confuse violation of the NAP with self-defense. These are not the same kinds of force. Neither do I see how voluntary praxology is statist.
You are claiming ownership over my property due to my running a node. That is not ancap, that is not pragmatist. For me to have a right to deny you access to my property is a prerequisite of property itself. To insist I am committing violence by denying you access to the use if my property is arguing in bad faith. To invoke the Landauer principle against BIP110 is to use jargon you do not understand.
Either you are in cognitive dissonance, drunk or acting in bad faith. You pick.
You're arguing two separate issues. 1) open up OP_RETURN and let the fer market decide rather than let the nodes filter transactions, and 2) the vbyte discount distorts the market price. I am not addressing issue (2) because it's irrelevant to issue (1). Changing (2) does not fix (1). You're essentially parroting a variant of core's position that spam should be handled by the market price of blockchain space. That's like saying "let the bandwidth of your email server limit the amount of spam that can get into your inbox, and all you need to do is increase the amount of good emails to crowd out the bad emails.
Remove OP_RETURN altogether? What is your definition of STANDARDNESS? To remove a default? If there is "no standard" than what is the default you propose? To refuse to run unless someone intentionally configures the parameter? All that could do is establish to a de-facto standard size.
It does nothing to address using outputs to hold data, which makes the utxo set demands ever worse. The OP_RETURN is almost a necessary feature to hash-stamp an out-of-band proof to a transaction. Yes, BIP110 is insufficient to stop spam, but it will implement resistance, and knots-style filters will add more resistance.
The only remaining alternative is to move to ZK proofs and/or encrypted UTXO destination addresses, not for privacy, but to eliminate the possibility of clear-text transactions and to provide liability protection through plausible deniability to node operators.
🎯
Fuck PROGRAMMABLE money. Bitcoin is one step away from becoming a de facto CBDC if it’s “programmable” money.
I reject this framing. Anarchy doesn’t work as a governance structure without strict enforcement of some rules. Anarchy is all about “rules, not rulers”, and not about “I can do whatever I want”. I’m an anarchist myself and I’m firmly in the antispam camp. Tightening the relay policy is a way to enforce some rules that were made unenforceable due to irresponsible development processes.
untenable.
Don’t know what is atheistic anarchism. Sounds like some communist BS. Society without faith doesn’t work.
its the only kind of anarchism there is...
you might bother taking a listen to find out why that is.
No thanks
why am i not surprised.
you and your adolescent arrogance way more part of the problem than any solution you vomit on the web.
yet another mentally internet-shattered "scholar" , ladies and gentleman... who cant be bothered to know WHAT he is promoting or claiming to be ACTUALLY is, nor why it is totally contradictory in essence... not to mention function.
another ego tripping mcmerican on the path to schizophrenia in old age... LMAO... gfy poser LARP.
🥱
your internals:
next up, "my pussy hurts"... "blocked"!
Why is everyone misreading what I'm saying? I'm not saying that relay policy should be loosened whatsoever.
And I never implied there shouldn't be rules. I feel like everybody is skimming what I'm writing instead of actually reading it.
I get what you’re saying. But it’s not so simple as us vs them type of thing.
Also, I would submit that anarchism isn't a governance structure whatsoever. It is simply a relationship between individuals.
I think it's being fashioned into an "US vs THEM" conflict because people on the Core side do the old trust the experts line while people on the RDTS side are hand waving away the potential for it to go very badly.
Meanwhile, the root cause goes untouched and undiscussed. The old Overton window trick.
Agree, it’s a form of a social contract. Governance imply someone governing.
> the potential for it to go very badly.
More badly that already is? Have you seen the chain under the hood?
Than*
It's always been programmable money. There's this thing called Bitcoin Script. You should look into it. It allows you to do magic internet money things with friends.
Yes, not directly, but indirectly. Giving people the idea that a contentious soft pork pushed through without a URSF it's not only doable, but more likely. To be fair, to BIP110 though, the SegWit soft fork really opened this door and BIP110 methodology is just widening it.
Remember, there's literally nothing anyone can do about someone spinning up fake pubkeys. That is a serious validation vulnerability and I don't think there's any (palatable) way to do anything about that.
I know about Script. It doesn’t do the magical things you think it does. Not yet at least. That’s why the push to make bitcoin into Ethereum 2.0. Taproot was a Trojan horse and it might as well kill Bitcoin eventually.
Nice that you support #BIP110 as monetary use of Bitcoin Freedom Money including scripts continue to work as before.
Programmable money, NOT programmable spam dump. #BIP110 🤙
agreed. root problem is segwit discount.
This is a feature not a bug sir
Features can become bugs if you take them too far.
This CBDC talking point bothers me too. The fact that money is programmable is. Or the problem. Fiat is programmable. CBDC's are programmable. Credit cards are programmable.
The thing that makes bitcoin unique is that only Gary can program his Bitcoin. I can only program my biitcoin.
All the other payment methods mentioned above are programmable too, but not buy the supposed owner of the currency or FICO or whatever. Those payments are programmed by someone else.
Are you talking about Taproot?
And CTV.
