pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 15h \ parent \ on: SN proposal: make any SN post an OP_RETURN record (optional) meta
of course
Did you read the entire thread here? #971277
I thought the questions that were asked, and there were many, were extremely well answered and overall very neutral. Very professional. Great presentation. Great use of risk management on display.
No-one knows the future, and risk management is impossible to get 100% right... but honestly I find the appeals to emotion on the part of the 'filterers' to be less convincing.
Please see GMaxwell's comments here:
An excerpt:
@wizkid057 I've carefully read your messages as wells as the other messages from your colleagues at ocean and I have failed to find any clear explanation of the harm we could expect to experience from removing this limit.
It's all well and true that NFT/shitcoin stuff is bad, but there is no reason to expect that this should increase that activity: Anything that can be done with op_return can be done just as well (for the data embedder) with 'fake addresses'. And fake addresses are both far worse for Bitcoin due to bloating the utxo set and are essentially impossible to block. Moreover, parties that want to bypass this limit at scale and particularly for abusive purposes have an easy avenue to do so by directly handing large miners the transactions, which is now a reliable method for getting transactions mined that violate policy.
I've also found no counter to the benefits of removing the behavior: that at least some of the fake address traffic has indicated it will switch, that any discrepancy between what nodes relay and what miners mine hurts block propagation which advantages large miners at the expense of smaller miners, that direct-to-miner relationships also favor large operations over small, that an incomplete mempool reduces your ability to look at it and tell what price may will get your transactions in the next block, and that a fruitless game of wack-a-mole trying to block transactions creates a dangerously muddled message about the ability of Bitcoin participants to blacklist transactions/addresses such as those on state set blacklists. And of course, simpler code with fewer options and thus combinations of options to test.
There is nowhere for them to learn that Stacker News exists. I never saw it mentioned on twitter when I used to use it.
And frankly it's a little more complicated incorporating lightning. I've never heard Lightning even mentioned by the 'talking heads' that typically discuss Bitcoin
People go to Reddit to learn something new. There is no new 'onboarding' process for new Bitcoiners... there is no HR department, no 'welcome' package no basic how-to.
Unless someone dives into the 'how to' section from their hardware wallet manufacturer (which they should) where else do they learn?
Some of the educational incentives and narratives have fallen apart.
It should be easy to onboard people to Lightning, opening 1 or 2 channels, to use for spending or transferring money on the internet. Tipping their favorite Youtuber for example or donating small amounts to aid groups or journalists or NGOs, buying things in their local communities or sending money cross-borders as remittance.
But often the 1st time people encounter Bitcoin is twitter which is a ****show.
Twitter really is for advanced Bitcoin users NOT for beginners.
BitcoinBeginners is probably the best place for Beginners. After which I might recommend r/Bitcoin followed by stacker news. Twitter and Nostr are really for people who can see through the BS or take things with a grain of salt... NOT for beginners which I think is part of the problem.
100% agree friend.
The irony, of course, is that Stacker News is the biggest community of people using Bitcoin in a consistent and subtle way. (At least that I've found.)
But due to the brilliance of the scaling solution that is Lightning... none of it is on-chain.
'Don't understand Bitcoin' - don't use it. (leave it on an exchange, don't run a node etc)
DO understand Bitcoin... use Lightning for almost everything meaning that on-chain usage is infrequent or uncommonly necessary.
WHAT A PARADOX!
Brilliant video from Matt Kratter.
Some things he says I don't agree with (some of the spam stuff)
But he's 100% right Bitcoin has to be used to survive.
Bitcoin is what we make of it.
Do you get these like... random sites to do stuff with Bitcoin??? i would never find these otherwise
the solution is fee pressure, time, and the free world's education as to what bitcoin is. with education comes demand, with demand comes fee pressure, and w/ fee pressure little to no space for spam except that which is willing to pay large fees ('subsidies') to miners.
time education and fee pressure to conduct economic activity
The May 22 gala at Trump National requires $TRUMP memecoin token ownership to attend, with access awarded via a public blockchain leaderboard.
Accountable.US, a center-left watchdog group that investigates corporate and political influence, described the leaderboard contest as “the most nakedly corrupt self-enrichment scheme in U.S. presidential history,”
what a great look
many of the knots-people (not the developers but the people following them) seem to think that by 'filtering the spam' they can keep it off their node completely. they want no spam they want to be 'spam-free' so they run knots to keep the spam 'to a minimum'.
like "filtering their email inbox" is how it is explained
they don't understand they actually download the spam regardless.
and then when the alternative/nuance is explained they say "oh you're just malicious"! "you hate bitcoin!"
"you're corrupt!!!" which is not helpful obviously.
So what we know is that spam filters works, are they 100% effective? Of course not
these are mempool policies, not spam filters. Even if you decided ok we're "filtering the spam" from now on...
and you said hey "we're fixing the bugs too!" you would need > 90% of nodes with these new 'filters' to keep the inscriptions from getting into blocks.
And at that point the nft people or memecoin people could just... run an older version of bitcoin core (assuming that core changed mempool policy) making "the filters" completely moot. or they could run libre relay. or some other version that was still consensus-valid.
or they could just use mara slipstream and at only 1 sat/vb like in the current environment just pay 1000-2000$ and get literally an entire block with a big picture, a big jpeg occupying the entire block just for themselves.
and 'the filters' would do absolutely nothing. Even running knots you still 'store the jpeg' in disc space and now that the jpeg is 'more rare' or is 'mined by mara and banned by filters'...
Mara gets potentially more business are the prices of the jpegs go up.
it has 'war on drugs' vibes to it and i think that's what some developers want to avoid.
wait, what are you talking about specifically? Is this a mempool policy? or something else?
my understanding is that a 'complete' solution does exist, the 'purifier' solution but of course it is a hard-fork.
40,000 a day is 1666 an hour or 277 a block. With 3000 other transactions a block that's... >9% of each block?
In my opinion it's not about scaling... it's about survival.
Today's 'default hashrate buyer' is the block subsidy. But like I wrote it won't be that way forever.
So why would anyone mine, except for reward? Either from subsidy or from transaction fees? Eventually nation states could and would mine and they might mine at a loss... but assuming that they would want and need to... there would likely be plenty of demand for blockspace anyway so the subsidy might not matter that much.
Bitcoin is what we make of it. The network is how people use it, and what they use it for. It's a 'use it or lose it' network and it's strengthened based on the speech and values of those who utilize it.
Mr Shinobi had a great post on this last year
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/bitcoin-use-it-or-lose-it