Thread

Are they still talking about this update? Damn.

Why are you highly critical of him?

The fact that he doesn’t get why there is Bitcoin and everything else is shitcoin. Also because he doesn’t get it that the problem with the Fed is not that it is not a governmental institute, but that it is because it prints money out of value and this wouldn’t have been justified even if it was entirely a governmental organization.

Yeah, bro. It’s even gotten more serious :)))

What's going to happen?

Andreas is wroing about OP_RETURN and so are you. Calling filtering spam a censoriship is a nonsense. nostr:nevent1qqsflgsv92lel2sumsgv7tpautp7mw9mer4rqva2x30dewejgfr2u3qppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshszyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekk7mf0epp9dj nostr:nevent1qqsqfydpkz6clmh4u5vf50uxadfjhmuxdwskjz7dfvpk2xhu4p6w3dcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wshsqd2pwg

Nothing. We're gonna pass through this safely too.

I hope!

I definitely consider spam as waste. There was a huge demand for inscriptions (initially), but the craze went away. Because more people realized it’s a waste. Including those who got head over heels about it.

That is the result of OP_RETURN filter prior to Core v30. And this why we need filters and we need the soft fork that makes sure Bitcoin is used as much as possible as Freedom Money and not as decentralized file storage.

Exactly

You are selecting a subset that confirms your bias. Before version 30, there were various waves of high op_return transactions. It didn’t need v30 to make that possible. If only 8-12% of the network relays the transaction with a high op_return, it will be relayed to a miner. Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference in high op_return transactions being mined. I prefer them to be relayed through the network of nodes than being paid for out-of-band to the miner. All said, incentive for inscribing spam on op_return is low. Cause a spammer can choose to use inscriptions at a discount.

If you’re dismissing Andreas Antonopoulos with the label of being a “shitcoiner,” then by that logic you’d have to dismiss Nick Szabo too. But you won’t. Why? Because he happens to agree with your preferred position. The point is: you can’t rely on ad hominem attacks when someone challenges your bias, then give people from your own camp a free pass. nostr:nevent1qqsgqzqnk2aryw50yqq6lnmygcz6trmaw03pxvfjk8cqhqx0mmssvlqc2lwsa

I get the point, all personal attacks help nothing into the discussion. But Matthew Kratter provides arguments to prove that OP_RETURN limits have always worked and should not be removed. Bitcoin has to stay available to be run on any average computernfor years to come, and we cannot afford to use it to store images, videos, or anything that wastes storage, energy, and is not directly related to a transaction as per definition. There is proof that opening the protocol to handle arbitrary information degrades the network, see BitcoinSV, ETH… and practically any other coin that does not restrict it.

and I don’t wanna degrade any other protocol or person. I don’t wanna say “everything other than btc is a shitcoin”, but the fact is there: I can NOT run ETH with my personal computer because of all the NFT, contracts, and etc. making the running of a node impossible without a high end supercomputer. Bitcoin decentralisation depends on the average person being able to run it to support the network

My main point against bitcoin core is: Even if I was wrong, and the developers could somehow know that this change is going to improve the network, they are pushing through it. There is a high resistance towards this change inside the community (this thread would not exist otherwise), yet the change has been pushed anyway. No matter how good the change could be, this should not be how changes are made into a money system that depends on stability.

The changes being made opens bitcoin to an enormous attack surface with the pretext of making it able to do… what you can already do with any other coin like ethereum or solana? The core development team is pushing for a change that no one really needs unless their goal is to downgrade bitcoin to the same level as other expensive (to the computer) systems. This + the change being made against a significant part of the community (around 25%) raises a LOT of alarms inside my head. Bitcoin could be under a sophisticated attack made by people who want to break with its decentralisation.

How am I selecting a subset when those are facts? Actually you are not entirely honest - "Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference" All Core versions prior to the malware Core v30 filter OP_RETURN to less than 83 Bytes and that result of that is showed as evidence on the screenshot above. If you state you are against spam I don't know how you support large OP__RETURN and the malware Core v30 which not only is not fixing anything it welcomes more spam. If you state you are against spam you should support the soft fork which limits spam and non-monetary data but you seem to not support it. If you state you are against spam don't you ask yourself why the compromised Core devs did not fix inscriptions spam? It still abuses Bitcoin. Inscriptions spam is fixed on Bitcoin Knots. You can also check the arguments of the Core devs for their decisions which revealed tham how compromised they are. nostr:nevent1qqs06nuwy2naacmcw6uh5lf44q8982v98cqegqm4e6znd9c2wkd34sqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09ua9rxcv

OP_RETURN has practical uses too. Coinjoin transactions are valid transactions, but limiting OP_RETURN filters them. Imagine if the whole network imposed the same limit as Knots, then no coinjoin transaction would have been mined. Not all the applications of data transfer are limited to storing images or data. Apart from OP_RETURN, BIP444 blocks OP_IF, which is used in nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsqgxv43pk4mqurmp2u522mc9cvn3n0vzv6vxvy8zs6ulq46cdf7khz53utk7y . It's a valid use-case which enables inheritance planning on Bitcoin. The choices made in BIP444 are not limited to OP_RETURN and those choices are detrimental. It goes against the principle of "Don't fuck with people's money".

The spammers fuck with peoples money and abuse Bitcoin. Coinjoin are valid transactions and Knots allows them. No one is against storing hashes of up to 80 Bytes in OP_RETURN. 100 000 Bytes is abuse of spammers. Inscriptions are abuse of spammers. BIP444 fixes those things as much as possible or at least limits the abuse on Bitcoin.

Transaction fees automatically take care of this problem. Inscriptions were a problem, but for almost a year. Economic incentives disincentized jpeg enthusiasts. They are not a problem anymore.

Not true. Spam is still huge problem on Bitcoin, now with OP_RETURN blown up is even bigger problem and fees alone are not enough to prevent it.

With the soft fork in place those huge spam bloats that got recently mined won't be even possible.

Spam is not a problem 👇

Spam is huge problem. Its a waste. nostr:nevent1qqsp9jpxgjppwg3e46ljzxtcs9a89aq2kcjvskfqqn4cmsvcncsnmvcpz4mhxue69uhkg6t5w3hjuur4vghhyetvv9uszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wghxy6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcwqhsxz nostr:nevent1qqsflgsv92lel2sumsgv7tpautp7mw9mer4rqva2x30dewejgfr2u3qppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshszyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekk7mf0epp9dj

Spam is not a problem for Ethereum and all the rest of the shitcoins. Bitcoin is Freedom Money. Not a spam dump.