pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 7 replies \ @028559d218 OP 12 Jun \ parent \ on: Influencers out in Storm: Is *This* the Hill to Die On? bitcoin
Thank you for your comment.
I used to watch Matt Kratter almost every day... wake up, get a coffee and watch. Because he has made some great content, especially for relative beginners.
But he has IMO fallen into the "we need to filter" trap pushed by social media influencers. He doesn't talk about the downsides. He doesn't use nuance. It's all... Black and White and he encourages his users to 'run knots' without stating any of the downsides or risks of what that could entail. He preaches "us vs them" because they're "all corrupt" and "bought off"... and "running knots" is the only "solution". It's nuts.
And then there are other people, prominent folks, who go around saying "core is captured" and "they are corrupt" "bought off by the VCs" "compromised" etc etc...
I read ALL of this thread #971277 and this one #978404 reading through ALL of the questions...
And I felt like the overall presentation by Core members + Merch was extremely thorough, sober, technically logical and reasonable. "Murch" did a really great job IMO. I don't necessarily understand everything or even agree... but the presentation was very very thorough.
I DON'T get that from the filter crowd. Quite the opposite it's emotional pleas.
I wasn't "here" for the blocksize wars. But looking back... doesn't it just seem so obvious?
My non-technical understanding of this... is that Knots isn't another "implementation". It is a fork. "Implementations" would be other blockchains (BCH BSV for example) whereas knots is a 'client'... a forked client? Twitter is so noisy and influencer-oriented it's hard to get any valuable information typically. So I understand that people cannot work in that environment. I also get that 'feedback' is valuable and 'community engagement' is too...
But there's a fine line. It's hard to find that balance and it shows the challenges of "decentralized" software development where eventually somewhere somehow decisions have to be made.
The pro-filter people... don't really talk about consensus. They talk about mempool policy. Many of the pro-filter voices on Twitter for example... could not explain the difference between mempool policy and consensus. They don't look at mempool.space. They don't coinjoin. They don't use Lightning. They want to "stop the Spam" because "core is corrupt" because "core wants spam"...
But I think they would have a hard time explaining "the spam" as it actually presents in mempool.space on a day-to-day basis.
It's very much "us vs them because they are corrupt" lol
Increasing the block size is "logically" delusional. Blockchains don't scale? No decentralized chain can contain every transaction for every coffee or every candy bar for 8 billion people across the entire Earth for hundreds of years... it's impossible. In addition we have periods now of +spam and/or half-empty blocks how people could advocate 'bigger blocks' thinking that's 'a solution' < 15 years into Bitcoin. It's like ideology over practicality especially obvious now... that Lightning works pretty good and facilities with usage for apps like Stacker News.
Alright let take these on bit by bit.
I used to watch Matt Kratter almost every day... wake up, get a coffee and watch.
I had to search who this Matt Kratter is... a trader? What was he talking about every day? Not code and protocols I hope?
they're "all corrupt" and "bought off"
Were any receipts brought? As in direct evidence? I've personally not seen any. All I hear is accusations based on hasty generalization and appeal to motive (such as: they get grant payments and they have power and don't do what I want, therefore they must be corrupt), kind of pathetic imho.
And I felt like the overall presentation by Core members + M[u]rch was extremely thorough, sober, technically logical and reasonable.
I have great respect for all maintainers of Bitcoin Core (incl BIP maintainers (and yes, Luke too)) and frequent contributors, they are all talented and I've not seen much malice over the years. Not every proposal is the right proposal though, and no one is infallible; and they all know it. It's impossible to get a PR merged in Bitcoin Core if you think you're "the GOAT" and you're unable to listen to people, fix mistakes or improve things based on their comments, or if you're simply impatient. The collaboration makes it great software; not the individuals.
I don't necessarily understand everything or even agree... but the presentation was very very thorough.
What did you disagree with? I couldn't find your disagreement in the comments but I may have overlooked it?
But looking back... doesn't it just seem so obvious?
It's a tradeoff. I ran my main economic node off a Raspberry Pi 2 and later a little more modern armv8 board with a fast disk interface, for many years; I've always been a small blocker because I liked the abiity to do these kinds of things small scale. The only reason I don't run my node on a small board anymore is because I travel too much: I now run it in a datacenter because that's easier to manage when abroad.
My non-technical understanding of this... is that Knots isn't another "implementation".
Knots is basically a set of patches on top of Bitcoin Core, which Luke publishes and reapplies every time there's a Bitcoin Core release, so yeah, it's 99.99% the same implementation. He's been doing that for many years, starting from the real early days where he was the maintainer for the Bitcoin Gentoo Linux package. Over time, Luke has added increasing amounts of patches to Knots, mostly whenever he disagreed with Core consensus (or vice versa), and I think that that's fine: Luke's repo, Luke's rules.
"Implementations" would be other blockchains
Not really, that's what the dude you showed me the video from imho got wrong. Those are not Bitcoin but simply hard forks from people that didn't want to follow Bitcoin's consensus rules anymore and failed to get developer alignment to their cause: in both cases these were minority forks initiated by the minority themselves, not by any action on Bitcoin Core. They were made for the sole reason to change consensus in a disruptive way; and at least in one of the cases, to consolidate power to a scammer.
Instead, "implementations" of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus rules are for example btcd and libbitcoin. Those are written from scratch to implement functional nodes.
Twitter is so noisy and influencer-oriented it's hard to get any valuable information typically. So I understand that people cannot work in that environment.
imho Twitter is a crap platform if you're a serious person; always has been. The only way to use it safely is in chronological echo-chamber (following) mode and that's dangerous too when you're not following a diverse enough set of people. Nostr is a bit better if you're using a plain, algo-less client, but let's be honest: it's not really diverse enough. There's more diversity (of topics and opinions) on SN than on the entire nostr network.
It's hard to find that balance and it shows the challenges of "decentralized" software development where eventually somewhere somehow decisions have to be made.
I'd argue decisions don't really have to be made as long as Bitcoin Core does what they do: fully compatible softforks. That's why the key property here isn't
decentralization but the much nicer feature on top: permissionless. As long as Bitcoin is permissionless, you too can patch whatever you want (or use Luke's or Peter's published patches) and make it just how you like it. This is why ultimately, Luke can publish whatever tf he wants, and people can run whatever they want. But ...Many of the pro-filter voices on Twitter for example... could not explain the difference between mempool policy and consensus.
... having the option to run whatever tf you want, including software that is nasty, doesn't mean you should just run whatever someone else tells you you should run. It means you should do your own research, and run what you, after careful consideration, think is best. For most people this unfortunately means they are in desperate need for immediate tech skills and critical thinking development.
There is no difference between noobs following some trader on youtube that preaches "Luke's dysfunctional tweet content" for likes and followers, and therefore are convinced that Knots is the only way one will be admitted to heaven, and noobs following Udi that wanted some likes and followers, and therefore were convinced that the safest way to hold your coin is to put it all in FTX custody. It's in both cases the blind herd being led by the one eyed Shepard. In the latter case, off a cliff. In the former case, hopefully that won't happen; I still don't expect that Luke will push a minority fork, but I can't be 100% certain of this. Maybe some follower retard will though.
Increasing the block size is "logically" delusional.
The segwit implementation chose to 4x the blockspace, so it's literally happened on the chain you're holding your sats on. It could imho (and I'm not alone in that opinion) have been engineered to just keep it 1x with a slightly differently implemented mechanism for size calculation. So yeah... this actually happened and whatevs, it's consensus now.
No decentralized chain can contain every transaction for every coffee or every candy bar for 8 billion people across the entire Earth for hundreds of years... it's impossible.
Correct. Also I don't care about anyone's coffee and I don't want to validate coffee purchases. I just want to validate that my coins aren't counterfeit, and I want to help others to make sure their coins aren't counterfeit. Preferably their 1M sat utxos, perferably not their 500 sat utxos: they can just do small txs on LN so that it doesn't bother everyone.
And then one could ask: but do you want to validate jpegs? And my answer is no. But there is no way to prevent it as it's a tradeoff of having a permissionless system; to truly address it other than by dealing with high fees, permissionless properties must be weakened. And since that property is the greatest good for me, I am personally not willing to compromise. And that's all there is to it, imho.
reply
I had to search who this Matt Kratter is... a trader? What was he talking about every day? Not code and protocols I hope?
No not code. Bitcoin for beginners. Started around 2020 I think.
Were any receipts brought? As in direct evidence? I've personally not seen any. All I hear is accusations based on hasty generalization and appeal to motive (such as: they get grant payments and they have power and don't do what I want, therefore they must be corrupt), kind of pathetic imho
Ohhhh boy. You must not be on Twitter or listened much to the 'podcast' space the last few years. There is an almost all-out social-conflict for the "soul" of Bitcoin with regards to "spam"...
Questions like: What is Spam?
Who makes the Rules? How do we define... Spam?
Is Core "centralized?"
Is it possible to "censor" spam?
How do we "protect" Nodes? From Spam? From "Bad Actors"?
Are Miners "Malicious" if they mine "spam"?
Can Miners be "socially censored"? Can we "shame" them into not mining JPegs?
Why wasn't Luke's "Patch" "Merged" into Bitcoin Core back in 2023? The one that "fixed" the Ordinals "Exploit?"
Is the "datacarrying" of Taproot an exploit? Is "core" malicious and "bought-off" (these are frequent descriptions you see on Twitter and/or Podcasts) for not fully merging "Luke's Patch?" The one that "fixes" the "Inscription Spam"? Is mempool policy really supposed to be that effective? If not then OK... why not?
And most importantly which you hear over and over ...
"Why does Bitcoin Core Hate Bitcoin???" (Which of course I think is ridiculous but that is what's said over and over and over by certain members of the "community")
It's impossible to get a PR merged in Bitcoin Core if you think you're "the GOAT" and you're unable to listen to people, fix mistakes or improve things based on their comments, or if you're simply impatient. The collaboration makes it great software; not the individuals.
I would agree. However... after Taprot and Segwit I am honestly a little concerned (as are others) that certain soft-forks would be pushed with unintended consequences. The technology may be sound... extremely sound. But could have unintended consequences that no-one forsees maybe 5-10 years later. Or reactions to consequences. 2nd, 3rd order stuff.
What did you disagree with? I couldn't find your disagreement in the comments but I may have overlooked it?
I don't disagree. However it's easy to make the case (without considering the subtlety) that "Bitcoin is Money". "It's not about Spam". We have to "weed the garden" and "making it easier for Spam is wrong" (these are filter-arguments that get made).
At least those are the arguments you see over and over even following the discussions on Luke's "Patch" and the raising of the op_return limit.
Some of the arguments are "well-made"... and nuance, subtlety, and clear-eyed realism is required not to give in to them, alongside some critical thinking? I think the issues are far, far more nuanced than meets the eye... and currently there is quite a bit of anxiety over whether the Spam will be "Too Great" in the future and whether "enough is being Done" to prevent nodes from becoming "un-runnable".
There is in-fact so much consternation around the issue of Spam it wouldn't surprise me if there were a soft-fork... that somehow became a hard-fork even if "pushed" by a small minority at least that's what I'm seeing...
it's a tradeoff. I ran my main economic node off a Raspberry Pi 2 and later a little more modern armv8 board with a fast disk interface, for many years; I've always been a small blocker because I liked the abiity to do these kinds of things small scale.
I ask myself "why Bitcoin"? And I think a thoughtful answer is neceesary. For me it's proof of work, being most decentralized, and the most technically ethically and economically sound. Lightning adds a tremendous amount in my opinion.
But I also believe "it's about Nodes." Bitcoin is special and unique because you are realistically encouraged to Run a Node (as a Pleb) and doing so is doable, technically feasible, and actually beneficial for one's transactions and network usage. This plus PoW separates Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies in a measurable way.
Instead, "implementations" of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus rules are for example btcd and libbitcoin. Those are written from scratch to implement functional nodes.
Our "community" needs better 'education' on these other implementations... and how they positively effect the quality of the software as well as censorship resistance.
imho Twitter is a crap platform if you're a serious person; always has been.
100% Agree. When I got into Bitcoin (which I did before I ever used Twitter) I was... shocked frankly at the amount of Bitcoin discussion going on there. It's a terrible platform for meaningful discussion. Too much noise... not enough signal. Stacker News is exactly the opposite.
Nostr is a bit better if you're using a plain, algo-less client, but let's be honest: it's not really diverse enough. There's more diversity (of topics and opinions) on SN than on the entire nostr network.
Nostr needs Pay-2-Post IMO. The number of Bots is growing... and the quality of content needs to improve to compete with SN.
I'd argue decisions don't really have to be made as long as Bitcoin Core does what they do: fully compatible softforks. That's why the key property here isn't decentralization but the much nicer feature on top: permissionless.
Just to be clear... the Knots people are looking for/dreaming of a total takeover. They don't want to 'co-exist' with Core. They want Core to become a small minority/meaningless on the network. So 'Knots' with its "filters" can become THE reference implementation.
As long as Bitcoin is permissionless, you too can patch whatever you want (or use Luke's or Peter's published patches) and make it just how you like it. This is why ultimately, Luke can publish whatever tf he wants, and people can run whatever they want.
The Knots people "do not accept this" they want 90%+ of the Network to have Knot's Filters.
reply
You must not be on Twitter or listened much to the 'podcast' space the last few years
I just mute morons and don't let any algo show me nonsense at all. So yeah I don't see that - and yes I deleted my 3rd incarnation of tweeter account a while back and I'm not going back. I try to listen to optech's recap whenever I find time and remember that I want to listen to it, but even with the arguably best curated bitcoin newsletter I sometimes shut it off: I don't have time for annoying people yapping in my ear while I'm working.
[list of moronic stuff]
Yeah that's not evidence, that's gossiping. Fuck that. Turn off the algo, it's wasting your time.
"Why does Bitcoin Core Hate Bitcoin???"
These peeps already sound like BCH shitcoiners, so the fork is looming. hah!
However... after Tapro[o]t and Segwit I am honestly a little concerned
Why? Also if you name them both at once, then what is the exact concern? What, in your opinion, went wrong with BOTH Taproot and Segwit?
Our "community" needs better 'education' on these other implementations... and how they positively effect the quality of the software as well as censorship resistance.
They are less quality than Bitcoin Core and have had less eyes on them, which is why everyone runs Bitcoin Core. But if shit hits the fan you can spin up a btcd node (it's easy) and use that (I'm not sure if the new libbitcoin is fully functional yet, I will try to remember to spend some time testing that again somewhere this month.)
Just to be clear... the Knots people are looking for/dreaming of a total takeover. They don't want to 'co-exist' with Core.
lmao. This is so dumb. Are you sure you aren't following some false flag psyop from a bunch of BSVtards?
reply
There are lots of these
reply
The only one that doesn't belong in your list is Jimmy's. It's a fair point that if you change policies for field
.vout[].scriptPubkey for something that cannot be spent by an input (and you coded it well) that you won't affect policies for field .vin[].scriptSig. So keep Jimmy.The point about not installing v30.0 without review is also a good one though and made multiple times. You should not install ANY version without careful review, so nothing changed.
As for Mechanic & Luke making a coup; wake me up when Antpool runs Knots. 😂
Unfollow these fools though.
reply
Thanks for your feedback. I haven't been in Bitcoin that long...
But this (Knots vs Core) is the most subtle and confusing issue that I've read about yet.
It's like 2 competing ideas that on the surface feel 'incompatible'. Or it's like other debates in society... the 'war on drugs'. 'The war on prostitution'. The 'war on X.' That nobody has really figured out.
Make it 'less accessible'... and maybe you stomp it out somewhat. Make it 'more expensive'. But you never totally get rid of it and by making it 'more rare' you get bigger and more resilient 'black markets' than you would otherwise... and that makes it worse (dark mempools, big private market APIs, more valuable "art" NFTs that are more "coveted" etc, harder fee estimation etc)
On the other hand if it's put 'out in the open' everyone can see what it is (usually spam) and the "free market" can decide what its value is and... where it "fits" in with the Big Picture. Long-term value. Real Capital.
I am pretty liberal/laissez-faire myself... so I value the "free-market" and education above all else. I believe the spam is 'priced-out' when more people use Bitcoin for obvious reasons and they will based on their curiosity and 'education' as to the world around them (more "freedom - oriented")
Knots (and its philosophy) is more conservative tho as is its author.
When I was younger I played the original "Stalker" series and in the game there were 2 'groups'... the Freedom Stalkers and the Duty Stalkers.
Freedom thought that co-existing with the Zone to understand it... was the best solution to the problems within it. The more mutants you kill the more that just crawl out and so the problem repeats.
Duty OTOH was all about "killing mutants" because that's what "duty" means. Killing mutants is your "duty" and in order to 'contain' the zone you have to kill them. A fascinating parallel.
Duty is all about containing the Zone, believing it to be an inherently harmful blight on the world. Their beliefs are easy to understand; given the deadly anomalies, brain-scorching emissions, and some of the most disturbing mutants in video games that define life in the Zone. If any of these threats escaped into the outside world, the consequences would be grave. Believing the regular military stationed on the borders of the exclusion zone are incapable of effectively fighting the entities within, Duty has no choice but to wage a private war on behalf of the human race.
On the other side is Freedom, the polar opposite of Duty. Seeing the artifacts and anomalies of the Zone as miracles to be explored and shared with the rest of humanity, Freedom believes its dangers can only be overcome by understanding, instead of destroying them. They claim that the spikes in mutant and blowouts are the result of the Zone defending itself against the likes of Duty and their attempts to destroy it. Though Freedom will hunt and destroy mutants, they do so out of necessity, rather than mandate.