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/datacarriersizeApplicability 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 dataEarly 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 eventsFull 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
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
Thank you
This is a low point for SN smearing and slandering @petertodd
Most SN users are NPC
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.
You are not a primary source
Do you have two primary residences or clerical errors?
You are a certified retard.
This is not about Luke. This is about having alternatives and Bitcoin Core not having a monopoly over what bitcoin is.
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.
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
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.
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
Wow even this guy gets it
HA, LMAO
Your headline says otherwise
Peter is spreading lies is hardly an objective impartial title
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
HellO, PediTodd. Nice try.
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.
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
What I love is SN nobodies slandering a somebody like Peter Todd
Lost balls detected. So many anons.
anons on SN are like rats in NY...
https://blossom.primal.net/c85783881516aaa6aaf8d4d40d658e897c704baf841ae8c47114cbe9b438dc87.mp4
with more hot takes and fewer pizza slices 🤣
We finally agree on something
We finally agree on something
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.
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.
maybe if we pay him 5k he'll change his mind
Best I can do is 5k sats.
The anon spice in these comments are why i'm still so bullish on Lightning
mmmm... who is Peter Todd?
According to a documentary he's Satoshi.
another one?
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).
Peter is an asset and spreading all sorts of misinformation.
Do you support price controls?
Do you support Luke’s filters?
What a dumbass
"Save the drama for your mamma." --wise sage of internetry
The anons don't want to sign up for SN.
I love when this debates initiate, makes bitcoin more interesting.
💥🔫I hope PediTodd does a sudden horrible death.
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.
More like decade after decade. I gotta respect the grind at least.
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.
Why should we listen to you?
Why do you assume you are not ignorant?
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.
And I thank you very much because I don't have the patience or the will to do what you do.
It's still amazing to me that people are rarely acknowledging that Peter Todd behaves like an insane person - most recently, calling for the deaths of all Russian people, not only soldiers, "because they pay taxes".
To me it's obvious he's being paid by some Ukrainian money launderers to promote BTC donations. Or he's there being a sexpat! Lol faggot
Dude has fully gone mad, so why would I even give a shit about how much of a cypherpunk he is?
Same goes for any of the whack-o Core devs who have went off the deepend. Soon people will wake up to them all being autistic and/or trans.