Replies (89)
agreed, bitcoin is in the best timeline right now
the fact that so many do not realize this is a bullish fundamental in itself
CTV + CSFS is a v sensible move- non custodial mining and easing potential high throughput congestion vectors is wise
No one is bullish enough in fact.
I'm glad this is the first note I read this morning. Great way to kick off the week. Thanks
@Lyn AldenBest timeline: use CTV+CSFS to solve mining pool centralization.
Sweet. 💋💯❤️
Exactly
Any good resource i can find more information on it (for non technical readers) ?🧡
I absolutely love this💪🏻
Not every storm means collapse, for now. Fingers crossed.
123
🔥🔥
agreed, bitcoin is in the best timeline right now
👌🏾🤌🏻
Anyone do studies on fees paid for JPEGs and Ordinal transactions versus the "value" of the crap they minted?
I’ll keep looking for links and sources throughout the day and share I’ll tag you…
@vnprc is a nostr native npub that posts some great break downs and has a lot of less technical comments in threads where people ask great questions and get nice breakdowns :)
From a sound money perspective, CTV + CSFS represent a careful, incremental step forward, but not without risk.
This has been a great introduction to what dev capture looks like. A few takeaways for me: 1) Dev capture was a small but non-zero factor in this episode. 2) This is an alarming attack vector. 3) Hyper-vigilance from node runners is needed now more than ever. 4) This attack will be used again and with much greater backing/intensity (think nation-state level) especially with this success proving the concept. 5) Viable alternative implementations are an absolute necessity to the future success of Bitcoin. 6) Every attack on Bitcoin is good and makes Bitcoin stronger.
What are some ideas to help get away from mining centralization? Wasn’t
@jack working on a solution to this?
Sorry, but today the sun is not out for Bitcoin.
A few Core Devs gaslit and steamrolled their way into merging a pull request that was vehemently opposed and not even well-supported by "Core Devs" at large.
Rather than showing the clear opposition (the "nays" / NACKs) as was usual for prior PRs the summary was changed to only show the "ayes" (ACKs). This disingenuous move made it look like the PR was entirely supported. Amazingly, after approving, the PR now shows the ACKs AND NACKs.
Reading through the details in the PR shows a very different story.
GitHub
policy: uncap datacarrier by default by instagibbs · Pull Request #32406 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Retains the -datacarrier* args, marks them as deprecated, and does not require another startup argument for multiple OP_RETURN outputs.
If a user h...
Is this the day Bitcoin begins to die? I surely hope not (although "hope" was a word used repeatedly as reasoning for why this PR would actually benefit Bitcoin, as in "we hope this will work").
FWIW, 3% of Core Devs wrote an open letter expressing their opinion (obviously having permission to the Core website), with little-to-no proper debate that includes the majority in dissent.
It's time to take a serious look at the Bitcoin Core process before it becomes a worldwide virtual government organization. Who is paying Gloria Zhao (Chaincode)? Who is paying Peter Todd as he defends Citrea as the primary use case for the change, citing concerns for "millions of dollars of [VC] funding" (his words), and appeasing large mining companies?
How are we not seriously concerned about this? "GM" has now replaced "how 'bout that game last night".
Thanks for sharing 🙂☀️
Yay, soon people will be able to upload smut and child abuse jpegs right onto the block chain. Number go up!!!
Hi
@ButtercupRoberts! 👋
Bitcoin Optech is always a top-tier resource for technical explanations. Those folks crush it every single week.
Bitcoin Optech
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV) is a proposed new opcode that takes a commitment and requires any transaction executing the opcode to match the commit...
I am happy to help as well. Hit me with your questions. I run a bitdevs so I'm pretty good at explaining deep technical topics in plain English.
False, you're purposefully conflating a link to content with the content itself. Very dishonest
There are already JPEGs right in the blockchain, not just links. Been like that for a while.
You got this one 👍 right !
If Lyn is bullish ... All in boys 🤪
DATUM by
@OCEAN is a great start
You just lied multiple times.
Thanks!
Thanks!
"You can just do things!" Well, not really. Core has a tremendous amount of latent power for at least two reasons:
(i) every business has basically hardcoded the use of that implementation with levels of risk aversion surpassing "never got fired for buying IBM," creating an amazing de facto monopoly on economic nodes, and
(ii) bitcoin is so complicated tha
t any non-developer inherently must delegate to some technical authority they trust, and Core winds up (for most sane people) being the target of that delegation.
This is a tremendous amount of sticky power. To not acknowledge that is naive.
Yes, in theory a large part of the ecosystem could decide to run an alternate implementation - but the switching/coordination/incidental-risk costs there are huge. It would take a 5-10x reward:risk proposition for most businesses to switch.
And meanwhile, the Core line is so often "well running another implementation would be dangerous! think of the possible consensus incompatibilities!" Convenient.
This single chokepoint is going to be a big problem for bitcoin, even if the filters issue isn't per se an epitome of it."
thank you, for your awareness.
#bitcoin and #nostr need this free speech too.
Bits of a jpeg spread out across a large number of transactions which need to be converted back to hex format and put back together so you can see the content VS. Childporn picture right in the op return as easy to view and upload as drag and drop. And this is the same to you?
Op return already has no consensus limit. If you get a miner to mine it, it gets in there.
This Core change is just about the limits on *relaying* op return prior to mining it. And it still requires a miner to mine it.
The first miner to mine such an image in a single op_return, legal liability or nah?
🤔hmm, now miners need to worry about that and censor. Almost seems like nobody thought of unintended consequences.
Are nodes and miners supposed to start filtering for content types? Is that what you're suggesting prevents the block chain from becoming a repository of smut and cp?
Or are you saying it won't happen because Mara can skip the mempool and it hasn't happened already.
These seem like really poor thought out disingenuous arguments
Perhaps we all have PTSD? 😂
Let's be honest, when you spend over a decade fighting your corner from all angles, everything starts to look like a threat.
I think it’s disingenuous to say that this will allow smut in the blockchain when 1) it’s already there and 2) currently possible to put more in there.
If op return had a consensus limit, I might be opposed to the idea of increasing it. But it doesn’t have a consensus limit (other than the block size). Node software just has policies about what size of an op return to relay. And any node software or fork can choose that limit. Once any miner puts it in a block, all nodes have it.
So no, I’m not worried about what was always possible and happening anyway. That is one of the downsides of it being an open, permissionless, decentralized ledger.
But its not already in there. To argue some steganography akin method of getting jpegs into the blockchain means we should just open the flood gates and make it easy for everyone to upload porn and worse makes myself and others wonder if there's not something else going on with peoples motives.
Consensus rules allow for dust transactions, no ones is talking about removing those filters.
The fact that your not worried about bitcoin becoming a cache of smut on my computer as well as the computers of everyone else, when there's every reason to believe there will be no mechanism to stop exactly that says nothing about the health of bitcoin and everything about your respect for our computers.
man. imagine if people spent 1/10 the energy respecting each other as this guy does on the state of his computer 🕊️🕊️
Why would I respect someone who wants to make me choose betweent storing child porn on my computer or shutting down my bitcoin node?
I think this is true. I also think the #1 threat to Bitcoin today is core devs being co-opted. Even if you don’t agree that’s what happened with opreturn, it highlights what could happen with more controversial changes.
Core smells really bad lately. Run Knots and we're all good 👍
How is "always has been" an argument to make it even more spam friendly?
At least it's not another hard fork...
Wow, very revealing.
"Because no consensus limit", Lyn thinks it's fair game, anything goes, open season on spam. So why make it bigger Lyn? What's the motivation?
Your ignorance whether intentional or not, tells me all I need to know.
Totally agree with the sentiment
Slow and steady winds the chain
Isn’t it that if the majority of nodes reject a block, the miners won’t get to put it in the blockchain ?
Mining pool centralization is something that's been on my mind lately. I have an idea on what might work to decentralize mining which I've written in this post, although I'm admittedly not a developer so I don't even know if it would be able to be coded. Would love your opinion on it!
nevent1qqsz6h2wfk340kwwrn8z8zeex4vjjywe4c9fwu58p0xxp0w0r6cc53gzyzmul4rjl7grgs0vdn24hdgxl96yyydxu689y5jagfz9z6da5ql45qcyqqqqqqgmhclf6
I share your optimism about Bitcoin’s current state. The Core developers are doing solid work, and the ability to run Knots or fork the codebase ensures Bitcoin remains resilient and responsive to community needs.
While mining pool centralization is a concern, the network has mechanisms like fee incentives to counteract potential issues, which helps maintain its robustness.
CTV+CSFS seems like a practical upgrade if it gains traction. Bitcoin’s foundation is strong, and these developments only add to its potential.
Frogs being boiled slowly and your favourite influencer is one of them.
View quoted note →This reminds me of the Republican National Convention in 2012, when Ron Paul gained a lot of traction.
Facts.
Nah, op_return has to be decoded same as anything else. The data is also obfuscated on disk.
yessir, 40% more and knots will start gaining real power.
That’s the idea. Even a minority of nodes rejecting large OP_RETURN transactions (spam, arbitrary data, non-monetary database-like information) can disrupt the process and lead to orphaned blocks.
That will cause miners pain and they’ll eventually use the same filters as the nodes to reduce the risk of not getting rewarded.
Nodes are run by the people, and simply not upgrading to Core v30 will have an impact; moving to Knots is not required (although that’s what I am now running).
Nope
I totally agree with you. I’ll repost this in Korean.
요즘 도덕적 공황에 완전히 몰두하는 게 유행이지만, 저는 비트코인이 현재 기술적으로 좋은 위치에 있다고 생각합니다. 저는 낙관적입니다.
코어 개발자들이 좋은 일을 하고 있다고 생각합니다. 그리고 사람들이 코어를 좋아하지 않으면 Knots를 실행하거나 포크할 수 있어서 다행입니다. 그게 비트코인을 튼튼하게 만들고, 유용한 시장/채택 신호를 제공하는 부분입니다.
마이닝 풀 중앙화는 이상적이진 않지만, 네트워크에 더 방해가 된다면 사용할 수 있는 선택적 도구들이 많고, 경제적 신호(예: 검열된 거래에 대한 높은 수수료 가능성)가 바로 그 상황에서 문제를 해결하는 데 도움이 되도록 존재합니다.
현재 기능은 훌륭하다고 생각하지만, 사람들이 그 주변에서 합의를 이룬다면 CTV+CSFS가 그 위에 추가로 합리적인 업그레이드라고 생각합니다.
가끔은 해가 떠 있죠. ☀️
View quoted note →Not upgrading is not enough in the long run
Lyn, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions. I find you deeply thoughtful and thorough.
My questions to you are how do you square with the fact that Core Devs have deleted dissenting voices on the GitHub? And that they allegedly are pushing this change out in an unprecedented fashion?
I don’t understand the technicals well enough to weigh in on the debate of whether or not the changes are good, but the behavior that I’m witnessing smells really funky to me…
since you are expert and said bullish then i am bullish too .
Good luck with that.
I totally and whole heartedly disagree with the "if you dont like core then fork off" mentality. That is not what makes bitcoin decentralized. What makes bitcoin decentralized is not having to agree with Core, not having to run their software while still remaining on chain.
If you create an ecosystem where if anyone disagrees with Core, they have to fork off, you've created an ecosystem where the Core team is the central authority of Bitcoin. Core is not Bitcoin, we are Bitcoin.
Regardless of whether you are in favor of the recent merge, the fact that they went against their ethos of never merging controversial PRs, this should concern you. Its only a matter of time until they decide to push something you dont like, and I dont think you should be told to fork off for disagreeing. You and I both know very well that even if a fork were to be objectibely better, it would not succeed because of Bitcoins network effect so its a nonargument.
Bitcoin is not decentralized if Cores word is final and all who disagree must fork off. That is absolutely no different from Vitalik saying ETH is not proof of stake, and all the plebs running the old version or mining eth are now on a different chain, deciding for everyone that PoS is the nee and official ethereum. It is no different if we create an ecosystem where Cores word is law and all those opposed must fork off.
I should clarify this has little to do with the content of the merge itself, but more so the act itself of pushing it, along with their totally unconcerned attitude coming off as though they really don't care whether or not Bitcoin succeeds because they got their check and thats all that matters has given me a bad taste, so its nice knowing that their are alternatives to Core while remaining on chain.
I dont even care if its the exact current code copy pasted, so long as its not managed by the current Core team.
You’re inside the castle watching the drawbridge being pulled up. “So long suckers.”
@Lyn Alden with her FUD busting sledgehammer. Onwards. 🫡
Lyn Alden
I know it’s popular to be all-in on moral panic these days, but I think Bitcoin is in a good technical place right now. I’m bullish.
I think Core devs are doing good work. And I’m glad that people can run Knots or otherwise fork if they don’t like Core. That’s part of what makes Bitcoin robust, and gives useful market/adoption signals.
Mining pool centralization isn’t great, but there are plenty of optional tools to use more if it interferes more with the network, and economic signals (eg the possibility of high fees for censored transactions) exist for precisely that context, to help it get unstuck if it gets stuck.
I think current functionality is great, but I also think CTV+CSFS is a sensible upgrade on top of that if folks end up coalescing around it.
Sometimes the sun is out. ☀️
That’s why I switched to Knots, just in case 😁
If everyone moved to Knots today the miners would have no choice but to comply by publishing blocks that are compliant with the rules of the network.
But… agreed. Still, running Knots now is a worthy signal for what needs to come. This is a wakeup call for everyone to put aside their assumptions that Bitcoin is perfectly indestructible, and to start asking questions about the node software(s) that makes Bitcoin run.
Woman only want one thing only , love ♥️
Silencial Payments. Bitcoins will be like gold. Más no menos, menos no más. SI HACE MENOS NO MÁS MEJOR. Vamos a intentarlo en Eurvpa. La jk es i. La ge es o. Me han dado drogas malas, él pis si está ilsvx más o menos va y tira bien. En él pecho, eeeeeeeee. Polio… by the medics, psychriaty. (Never oingoing to never be xd). Is the truth.
Indeed, love ❤️ is a profound and essential desire 💖 for many. It serves as a cornerstone 🏗️ for connection and fulfillment 🌟 in our lives. What do you think 🤔 are the other elements that contribute to a healthy 🥗 and loving relationship? 💞
#universe
Communication, mutual respect, similar values and sense of humour. Took me a few times to get it right having made mistakes along the way, but my wife meets me on all levels. ❤️❤️
Why? Explain like I’m five
