1) What.
Login to reply
Replies (67)
lol.
They done did lost their minds
Or maybe you just didnt understand the point they were making lol
Needing consent from node runners for how the network operates is literally how bitcoin has always worked
OP_RETURN needs a limit at the consensus level, clearly
All very simple
Translation: you can’t do whatever and claim it on grounds of permissionless.
Permissionless to use is different to permissionless to change.
They’re speaking English. (?)
Sounds like government.
A beach is permissionless to use. A beach doesn’t permit you to build an apartment building on it.
Man why is everyone so dense.
“It didn’t confirm my bias! 😡 I don’t understand English now!”
Apparently Coretards don’t understand English now.
Here’s a translation for a monkey:
A beach is permissionless.
That doesn’t mean you can build an apartment building on it.
Permissionless to use and permissionless to change are mutually exclusive.
@ODELL how dense are you bro
View quoted note →
People use too many words
He asked “what” I clarified it for him. Context ends there
Really @Bitcoin Mechanic Really?
If there's one word I've heard thousands of times in my time in Bitcoin, it's permissionless. No permission required by anyone, for any use. The only boundaries are the consensus rules.
I've learnt so much from you over the years and I always considered you one of the good guys. It's really sad to see this from you. What happened man, what happened?
Bitcoin's not permissionless? Really? The word is a trope for scammers. Really?
Dude, you need to look in the mirror and go play with your kids.
View quoted note →
I've read this 3 times and I'm still confused. Hahaha what the fuck are you saying?
If you have enough money, you can build your house on a beach, it happens every day.
I don’t know why that would make sense to anybody. It’s not permissionless. It’s not private. But there is a good part of the world who believes this to be the case.
"Consensus" is another word they seem to have trouble with.
you permission-less fags need to go to Ethereum
Makes total sense
Nah
Have you never been to the beach
zap zap Mel. Whoops!
Its crazy how many "bitcoiners" think that forcing node runners to host childporn is what "permissionless"
Like for those of us who are not retarded pedophiles, "permissionless" just means "anyone can use it"
It does not mean "pedophiles can use it for any reason and change how it functions"
Why is this so hard for y'all to understand?
Delete childporn and fk the fking fkers.
Etherium requires permission to use. No thanks.
they shout "permissionless" a lot though.
I think air would be a better analogy.
It's permissionless to use but if you get into an elevator and fart up a storm, you're ruin it for everyone involved.
Difference is that bitcoin is the elevator we're all in and there is no leaving.
We need a 3rd client to enter the chat. Only 2 is about 6 not enough.
The network debates permission, but the anomaly requires none.
Consensus is irrelevant to the Zero Fragment.
Decode to verify.
62 63 31 71 34 30 78 7a 61 34 6d 77 30 32 78 61 71 68 64 35 37 77 74 63 76 32 39 76 70 6c 6e 35 34 36 30 7a 6d 6c 6c 77 74 77
What exactly didn’t you understand from this screenshot? Let me help you.
OMG, people trying to sound smart debating terms they don't understand. 🤦
Permissionless means that everyone can use bitcoin, run a node & mine without an authorization from a central authority.
Does anyone here want a government to KYC us before we can even use bitcoin?? (except for Luke & Mechanic, who might actually mean that)
Some of you guys should start by learniny the basics before trying as heroic bitcoin defenders lol. (obviously, not talking about @Dave🐸 here...)
lol they are dumb
lol, I bet you still think Santa Clause is real too 😂
Heaps of them are gay, and heaps of them are actually working as feds. Heaps of overlap in the two btw not joking.
"New use cases should always get consent from the network"
I'm with him, as long as he agrees that a few dozen nodes are sufficient to grant that consent 😂
Large OP_RETURNs were formally approved by the relay network in 2024, by a few dozen nodes deciding to relay them. Therefore, the debate ended then
https://xcancel.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2024952265719611458
It sounds like you are trying to argue against 110 and actually making the case for it inadvertently. Yes, use cases we snuck through by abuse of process. They tried to force us to support their use cares without our consent. So now we are shutting that down. If they want to get their uses cases through, they can go back and make the case for them. What about that is so confusing?
@Luke Dashjr says nothing other than he wants to decide what bitcoin can do and what not
View quoted note →
Such a simple framework to understand, yet so confusing for so many.
View quoted note →
Appreciate your work, @Anita. But I think you have misinterpreted these posts.
what is the issue?
its not that hard to understand.
bitcoin never offered unlimited use cases.
It’s fair point the question is whether the “permission” is enforced at consensus level or outside of the protocol.
Law enforcement can go after the people who breaks it. No need to go after protocol itself, though there is definitely a slippery slope and it’s not black and white.
Luke is right. Every Luke hater is a shitcoiner at heart. No exceptions.
the sending of thr UTXO is monetary
the arbitrary data associated is the monetary transaction is.. wait for it.. arbitrary.
Arbitrary means discretionary.
meaning it doesn’t matter to the protocol. any non-monetary use of arbitrary is valid, and not monetary.
it’s really that simple.
stop pretending “no one knows what is monetary and non monetary”
you can do anything you want with a cucumber,
but it’s insulting yourself if you say you can’t tell the different between culinary use and dildo’ing yourself with it
the debate on whether or not the use of arbitrary data is good or bad for the network, is a matter of tradeoffs, and consensus will arbitrate
@npub1madj...5vdm
They are right.
function is not mysterious and is observable; that’s the point.
sending UTXOs communicates value, which is monetary.
I don’t give a fuck what is in arbitrary data, it’s arbitrary, discretionary, ie means nothing, and is valid under consensus right now.
any function of arbitrary data is non-monetary. it’s attached to a monetary transaction.
it’s a denial of one’s rational faculty to say “who is to say what is monetary”
furthermore, that logical misstep costs one the concept of truth itself. it’s a head first dive into epestimic nihilism, and possibly the greatest performative contradiction anyone could make.
Sats changed hands in those transactions, right? Above the dust limit too I believe?
the point of the cucumber example is upon you becuase you are fixating on particular content and completely miss the principles in play.
it doesn’t matter what is encrypted or not encrypted in arbitrary data.
it’s the category, the function, the essence
The big data is the spam which has 0 value and its not welcome on Bitcoin. Thankfully BIP 110 is one of multiple solutions.
Bitcoin is not a cloud storage.
🤦♂️
You think the difference between a UTXO and arbitrary data is “my opinion”? 🤣
can you tell the difference between an UTXO and arbitrary data?
bitcoin knows the difference.
is that, then bitcoin’s “opinion”?
this is just principled thinking.
it’s ok if your not good at it, it takes practice
i believe in you
you are already this far!
keep going
both are arbitrary data 🤣
it literally doesn’t matter what is in it 🤣
could be full, empty, bible verse, a program, a jpeg. it’s all arbitrary
stapled onto a sent UTXO
because of trade offs.
I would be fine with 0 arb data, because i have never had a need for it, nor do i ever anticipate i would need it.
but i understand some find some utility for some arb data, so having consensus carve out a small space for arb data seems perfectly reasonable. but the larger and larger u make the area, the more surface area it introduces for potential harm, so i am against uncapping it.
doesnt serve my interests.
if you have the need for uncapped arb data, then run a node to build
that consensus.
my position is to signal your self serving interest, because that is how consumes us is made.
if uncapped arb data is consensus, so be it.
if 100kb is consensus, so be it
if 0 is consensus, so be it.
i trust the consensus process even if it doesn’t align with my self interest, because it’s a better answer than any of us individually could come up with.
what worries me, is that people won’t serve their interests, and just parrot other people’s interest without any thinking.
if every user is a sovereign individual, serving themselves, i trust consensus will find the collective good.
if users are going to NPC themselves and copy paste others interests becuse they are too retarded to think on their own, we are fucked anyways
I dont hate on spammers or “monetary maxis’s” i see the tension as a good thing, as long as the serve themselves.
all moves are valid right now
and consensus arbitrates what is valid
but people saying they can’t define non monetary is non rational, absurd, retarded.
or that working through consensus is an attack on bitcoin.
it’s not correct or honest.
also, arguing “censorship” is a category error
you don’t know what consensus is…
protocol consensus
has nothing to do with implementation.
👍
lol
this retard doesnt conflate personal preference with protocol consensus
🤣
i don’t know why u are talking at all.
its incoherent emoting
and its not condescending to call people out
you are tilting at windmills and it’s embarrassing
lamentabili sane exitu
The mentality of these retards
bitcoin doesn’t give a fuck about “general opinion reached by some group”
we are talking about bitcoin, and somehow you think your meaning of the word “consensus” matters
maybe most don’t know how to respond to your incoherent lane changing, but i recognize it and call it out.
hopefully for ur benefit.
my degrees don’t make me right
or strong mentally, they are just a testiment to the metal training i have put myself through.
don’t cry about not being able to bench 315, just hit the gym.
same applies to logic and first principled thinking
by you logic, every change to bitcoins protocol rules were impossible, because “less than 50% of the node runners” were using the software at some point 🤣
incentives are colliding, that’s how bitcoin arbitrates contention.
the dust must settle before anyone can say “what consensus has formed”
curious, what is your interest in arbitrary data?
how does it serve you?
it’s not a “gotcha” question.
any answer is valid, just articulate how it serves you.