pull down to refresh
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.
reply
You call tweets like the ones you linked
subtle? haha.The only thing that's really happening is a (relatively limited) crisis in confidence in Bitcoin Core maintainers. This isn't new, and that it's over a relatively rational policy change also isn't new. It can be blown out of proportions even more but it also pleases me to see Nicolas Dorier on nearly every thread trying to explain people that they're misleading themselves.
If I were a maintainer of bitcoin/bitcoin, the only learning point from this would be to not mark controversial settings that people want to use, even if it makes no sense to use it to super smart rational people like gmax, as deprecated. Note that one of the maintainers tried to do this in #32714, but for some reason it was closed by the author with no reason given on GitHub. I'm too lazy to check IRC logs.
That's it, that's the signal. The rest is politics and noise.
decentralizationbut 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 ...