Thread

I think this was true initially At this point the narrative has gone so over the edge of core being malicious that a debate on technicalities is completely impossible imo And that‘s on nobody but Luke and his two braincelled prodigee

datacarrier was never removed. the current pending-release notes say: ``` -datacarriersize is increased to 100,000 which effectively uncaps the limit (as the maximum transaction size limit will be hit first). It can be overridden with -datacarriersize=83 to revert to the limit enforced in previous versions ```

Isn’t this often the case that once things stay in the public eye like this nuance and prober discourse go out the window ? Leaving the idea of possible malicious intent to the side.

it's marked as deprecated afaik

20% of Noderunners and climbing are on Knots. How much further do Core want to push it?

i don't think it even is anymore, but either way... so? it doesn't do what people think it does, but if they want to use it anyway it's still there

I don‘t think Luke has malicious intent I think he is a hardcore autist who is actually concerned about CSAM and following the law that has psyched himself a bit too far into believing that he must save us all from these evils because otherwise the apocalypse will be upon us (which doesnt mean that this absolves him of responsibility) But yes, imo the way our platforms are built exacerbates the doomsdaying and that is true for all things

The "journalist" tries to get back on her feet. By now she has lost so much credibility that she can safely be regarded a 3 letter agency asset.

Lmk when you know how to respond to actual technical arguments nostr:note1stjp0608nngjm4zfga0uwxexr7hjwgpsf3x6jw98retgfrev2wqsh08lhm

When did they start getting mad at core..? nostr:nevent1qqsfp2rkc7uj60t7xacyw2j5zmfmuv7lth06gxuvu6kj7yj6t29cnjgpupmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhj2v3swaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9ujnyvrhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekjctdwd68ytnrdakj7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6te9xgc8wumn8ghj7mnxwfjkccte9eshqup0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tjwvhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwv4u8getj0ghxxmmd9ujnyvrhwden5te0vejkuunfwgkhxtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6tw2836am

The journalist has made 600 followers in the past 60h so Im not quite sure what you are talking about

I was looking at the malicious intent through both sides. On core: moving and deprecating a feature for users that their base are clearly are divided on, just feels like bad mgmt. On Knots: Dividing a community on the premises of CSAM. My own 2 sats: Although possible today we don’t need more ways to spam even if they are more expensive and still require other software to extract. On luke personally don’t know the guy but this community is full of special folks 😄 Would love a platform that kinda prevents us all from getting too tribal on these cases ( a man can dream )

I think nostr actually does a really good job at that - its really become my happy place on the internet where i can choose what I see and engage however and how frequently i like as opposed to some nefarious algorithm deciding for me. I agree re core to a degree as Im not versed enough on how harmful these currently workarounds are that are being used. I do think that a lot could have been mitigated by explaining these things clearly (Realizing that I have a media platform and that I could also do smth about that instead of complaining). What I do think an interesting and very overlooked question in the spam debate is is who qualifies what counts as spam, and I find that a slippery slope - kind of like qualifying who a terrorist is. Today it may be JPEGs, tomorrow it could be a rollup, etc.

Thank you for being the first person with the guts to address this comment. Of course we could have explained things better - that didnt make it fake news then, and it doesnt make me admit to fake news now. Re the chainsplit, you are right that my comment should have said „*the risk* of a hf is always a chainsplit“. Technically, as what Luke is referring to, a hf is defined by the loosening of consensus rules. We didnt mention chainsplit scenarios in our article, so Im not sure what that has to do with anything. Im not sure what you mean by „presented scenarios not in the messages“, but I think if youre running knots not because you find it technically superior but because „luke is bitcoin‘s guardian angel“, then this may just be pointless to discuss Enjoy being angry at the news tho

You definitely are trying to use your platform for a good purposes I appreciate all the work 🫡 and we always can do better ✌️just keep on keeping on

600? 🏆 🤣

The issue is these guys had good reasons to get people riled up. Could have been defused quickly if there was a consistent, logical argument coming out for changes but there wasn’t for a while. Instead we got gaslighting, “paternalistic censorship” and actively antagonizing comments. It was a shift in thinking, communicated poorly, and the worst part was otherwise smart respected people dipping to unnecessary lows due to open source bad blood. The outcome is instead of having a somewhat hard conversation about the reasons for core wanting to nuke mempool policy, we’re now having the conversation about whether people are going to run core at all. Much worse. The solution isn’t more Luke bashing its core building trust with people again. Arguably the easier thing, the hard part is eating a bit of humble pie.

Yeah I just think a bit of give on the core side would go a long way. Mike Schmidt started doing this by putting up a pr to un-deprecate datacarriersize and it’s a good start.

Op_return has been discussed since 2014. There is a bitcoin mailing list for everyone to see. Mechanic and Ocean started this FUD campaign attacking Core in May. Core devs and core supporters are right to defend this bullshit FUD campaign.

nostr:note1srmqhttne6yvng9n7lrmp0lcns4djlly9cuh4ttc9835cvm7ty7q6xtp9v

nostr:note134qnh4fy7qalrwddg90a5xvrlgx2wghxat8qqu3ytwq57ftrqwrq0ptjjk

Rekt 💀

This means that propaganda and the destruction of credibility was worth it? 😓

No one has any way to verify the authenticity of these messages. I could photoshop a hundred signal conversations right now to make the images say whatever I want. That combined with Luke claiming you are spreading lies and how you decided to report it and imply certain things. The whole thing just looks terrible tbh.

Fair re the messages - so lets walk through that scenario. If someone photoshopped fake messages of something you allegedly said, would you not outright deny it with „i did not write the messages“, which Luke still hasnt done - instead ignoring everyone who asked directly? Similarly, wouldnt mechanic just say the messages are fake, instead of publicly stating that its just a conversation? Wouldnt Luke have denied the messages to giacomo, who also believes the messages are real and asked him in private, instead replying he is not working on a proposal that would reject blocks? No offense you guys, run whatever software you want, but you really do need to put on the critical thinking hat at some point because you are being dramatically mislead (not just with this fyi)

Yeah heres the thing I am being critical. I am pointing out that you know these messages cannot be verified. You just happen to not like my critical thinking. In order for there to be a strong case to backup your side of events we would need a digital forensics expert, clear chain of custody of both devices, someone to probably verify the metadata of when they were sent through the servers etc. etc. You can say you disagree with me and thats fine. But you cant argue Im not "critically thinking".

You have completely misunderstood the argument I have made. Saying, it happened on my phone, therefore I have verified it, is not a sufficient argument. All of us on the internet reading your article have no way to verify the authenticity of the messages. We live in an age where a 10 year old with a laptop and photoshop can make an image of any signal conversation and you will not be able to tell the difference. I get a very strong sense from you that you are not computer literate. Which is a shame given the nature of what you are "reporting" on.

Again, fairly certain that is a you problem. Have a nice day x

You being computer illiterate is by definiton a "you" problem. You cannot be this dense. You have failed to provide a coherent logical argument in response to mine. If you tell a bunch of people they are not critically thinking, but then when they respond with technical arguments you say "I've verified the messages are real. That you don't believe me is a you problem" shows that you dont even understand the argument. You are making a 'trust me bro' argument. I am making an argument about how computers work. Digital forensics. True verification of a digital event. I sincerely hope you have a good day as well.

L0la is a man