Peter Todd has been busy spreading lies on Stacker News \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Peter Todd has been busy spreading lies on Stacker News

7218 sats \ 68 comments \ @oomahq 31 Aug bitcoin

So I was writing a comment on Peter Todd's Luke is wrong: datacarriersize was about OP_Return, since Bitcoin Core v0.10.0 but it grew so much in scope that I thought it warranted its own post.

The central claims in Todd's post are:

that datacarrier and datacarriersize were always meant to apply just to OP_RETURN outputs
that the Core dev team was always fine with arbitrary data onchain and never made any effort to stop it

Both claims are sustained by citing from Bitcoin Core's v0.10.0 release notes. However, there's a lot more relevant sources that Mr Todd didn't think relevant to bring up, so it falls on me to do it on his behalf.

Applicability of datacarrier/datacarriersize

The most glaring omission in his post is that LukeDashjr was the original author of -datacarrier and -datacarriersize, which were indeed released with Bitcoin Core v0.10.0.

So not only is Todd claiming that Luke is wrong about the options he introduced himself, he also chose to share the release notes written by someone else (likely Wladimir van der Laan) instead of the actual descriptions of these options written by Luke, because they tell an entirely different story:

These descriptions remained unchanged until the summer 2023, when Core started moving towards legitimizing inscriptions explicitly. Marco Falke rewrote the description of datacarriersize to reduce it's scope to apply only to transaction outputs (inscriptions are done in transaction inputs). Bitcoin Core v26.0 released on December 2023 was the first release with the redefined datacarriersize.

Around the same time Luke submitted his own PR expanding the scope of his original option to include the inscription data envelope, unaware of the redefinition, and was ultimately shot down on the grounds of the definition of datacarriersize (without acknowledging that it had just been rewritten, nor Luke noticing it. That was noticed later).

Early Core dev's view on arbitrary data

The claim that Bitcoin devs have always been fine with unlimited arbitrary data and never made any effort to stifle it also crumble upon further inspection.

The release notes of v0.9.0 (when transactions with op_return was started to be relayed by default) are very unambiguous in this regard:

Another interesting source is the PR itself that made OP_RETURNs standard (and originally hardcoded to a maximum length of 80 bytes before Luke introduced datacarriersize a year later).

In it you can see that most devs, including Gregory Maxwell, talk very cautiously about opening up that data vector, while Todd is almost alone pushing for wider limits.

As a final comment, 10 years later Mr Todd was engaging regularly with the ordinal wallet repository around the time that ordinals launched. In here for instance, he can be seen arguing against adding an option to the wallet to store the arbitrary data on BitTorrent instead of Bitcoin transactions "because this data is worthless and it could be lost, so it has to go onchain".

Full timeline of events

04 Jun 2013 -> standard OP_RETURN PR created - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738
24 Sep 2013 -> standard OP_RETURN gmax comment on arbitrary data - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738#issuecomment-25017368
22 Oct 2013 -> standard OP_RETURN PR merged
21 Feb 2014 -> datacarrier PR created - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3715
18 Mar 2014 -> v0.9.0 released - https://web.archive.org/web/20140323172837/https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.9.0/
26 Jun 2014 -> datacarrier PR merged
11 Oct 2014 -> datacarriersize PR created - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5077
31 Oct 2014 -> datacarriersize PR merged
16 Feb 2015 -> v0.10.0 released - https://web.archive.org/web/20150318102801/https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.10.0/
06 Jun 2023 -> "clarify datacarriersize" PR created https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27832
03 Aug 2023 -> "clarify datacarriersize" PR merged, released in Core v26
05 Sep 2023 -> "match more datacarrying" PR created - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408
05 Jan 2024 -> "match more datacarrying" PR rejected

view all related items

2108 sats \ 15 replies \ @anon 31 Aug

It is insane that that crazy Luke has been able to launder his reputation, and to be considered a serious person/developer. Somehow, he has convinced some naive and stupid people to run Knots. Go count in tonal, lol. Know your history. Its an intelligence test, and many of you lukeboys are failing badly.

Meanwhile, actual cypherpunks like Peter are being treated poorly. Listen to Peter.

Stop listening to Luke, ffs. This is the dumbest timeline

1040 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

Thank you

This is a low point for SN smearing and slandering @petertodd

Most SN users are NPC

1050 sats \ 2 replies \ @oomahq OP 1 Sep

Love me some damage control with my morning coffee.

The beauty of primary sources is that they cannot "smear" or "slander", they're just records. Anyone willing to make the effort can go read what actually happened 10 years ago, contrast what they read against Peter's claims and come to their own conclusion.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

You are not a primary source

Do you have two primary residences or clerical errors?

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @anon 1 Sep

You are a certified retard.

40 sats \ 4 replies \ @oomahq OP 31 Aug

This is just a collection of historical sources.

Feel free to click on the links and verify the information found therein against Peter's claims.

532 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 31 Aug

Not seeing where Peter was wrong. You need to understand the context of Lukes changes, past, present and proposed. Luke tries to make arbitrary, bitcoin-breaking changes and makes a lot of noise. Idiots hear the noise and think he is being censored.

This is not the case. I will never forgive or forget stuff like bitcoin-0.9.3.ljr20140913.patch

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq OP 31 Aug

Sure, no one is right 100% of the time. I agree with you that attempting to hardcode a blacklist in the code for the SatoshiDice address was retarded.

But Todd's post and mine are about datacarriersize. It has nothing to do with that.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

Knots or Luke’s filters will create Reddit moderators in bitcoin clothing

Let the market decide

Unless you think censorship creates better outcomes, see Reddit

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

Your headline says otherwise

Peter is spreading lies is hardly an objective impartial title

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

I still haven’t looked at knots.

Not interested

This whole ordinals/filters/core thing has really brought out the egos in the space. At least with the blocksize wars we knew who the enemy was...big businesses (Coinbase, etc.) and crooks (Craig Wright etc.). Now with filters, etc. there's a whole new split.

@freetx

520 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 31 Aug

This is not about Luke. This is about having alternatives and Bitcoin Core not having a monopoly over what bitcoin is.

121 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 31 Aug

HellO, PediTodd. Nice try.

71 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 31 Aug

nope, just another anon cypherpunk who knows your stupid games Luke. You can't, don't and won't never know me.

Go eat your cat and fuck off.

12 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 31 Aug

That's a double negative. Go suck a Ukr dick, loser.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

This was confusing. @anon arguing with himself

59 sats \ 4 replies \ @oliverweiss 31 Aug

Lost balls detected. So many anons.

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Aug

anons on SN are like rats in NY...

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @oliverweiss 31 Aug

with more hot takes and fewer pizza slices 🤣

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

We finally agree on something

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

We finally agree on something

212 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 1 Sep

increasing block size for jpgs will ultimatly force node runners to be KYCed, is this not obvoius? It starts with cat pics and ends with CP, rott in hell for pushing this.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @StanKozlovski 23h

Exactly. It seems like there are a lot of compromised actors in the space pushing for this. I haven’t seen one sound argument in this thread for example, and the top zapped posts are just ad hominem attacks. Goes to show zapping doesn’t work as a way to show the most sensible content when the adversary is well funded and motivated

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

What I love is SN nobodies slandering a somebody like Peter Todd

23 sats \ 1 reply \ @BITC0IN 31 Aug

maybe if we pay him 5k he'll change his mind

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq OP 31 Aug

Best I can do is 5k sats.

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @02ad8239c2 1 Sep

all these bizarrely rabid comments really put the supposedly technical nature of the core/luke conflict into a starkly pointed, personal (political?) perspective.

the highest zapped comment is just a stream of desperate abusive noise that then tries to tell people what to do - 'u r all stupid, do as i say!!!11!' - which is kind of funny on it's own, but then the thread expands into all these other exchanges of slurs further down and just turns into a total bitch fight.

OP's post is good info, ( i would prefer it not to be titled 'lies' though - whether todd is lying or not, the post is strong enough not to need it) but it seems to have lit a touchpaper that's quite revealing of a 'don't oppose this' attitude, and the false appeal to the 'authority' of todd from the core/whatever voices.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq OP 21h

Fair enough. I indulged in a tad too much of clickbait on the title because the content is dense and I didn't want it to go unnoticed.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 31 Aug

The anon spice in these comments are why i'm still so bullish on Lightning

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 31 Aug

Absolutely no lies detected and very clear timeline of events. I’m just stunned that anybody believes Peter “Tail Emissions” Todd about anything… slowly trying to redefine what bitcoin is, day after day.

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq OP 31 Aug

More like decade after decade. I gotta respect the grind at least.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @alice_bob 31 Aug

And the biggest problems is not that Peter tells bs (at this point you have to be an idiot to believe him) but the number of ignorant people who do not question what he says and even thank him for his shit. His post has several examples of "bitcoiners" who forgot about verify.

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @oomahq OP 31 Aug

My thoughts exactly. And a big part of why I went through the trouble of collecting all these primary sources and put them up in a post.

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @alice_bob 31 Aug

And I thank you very much because I don't have the patience or the will to do what you do.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep

Why should we listen to you?

Why do you assume you are not ignorant?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BallLightning 1 Sep

I have forgotten about knots, but when I get home i will try to run it (i downloaded it some time ago, but then got distracted and did't even sync the blockchain).