pull down to refresh
344 sats \ 7 replies \ @kruw 14h
What a retard. Empty blocks are being mined, how could he possibly reach the conclusion that these Bitcoin database users are "absolutely drowning out payment use cases"?
reply
20 sats \ 6 replies \ @LibreHans OP 13h
You're misunderstanding the argument, Chris is not talking about current block space but about incentives and markets. What he actually argued: demand is unbounded, a point made by gmaxwell in 2015 or so. E.g., anybody on the planet who needs to store data forever can now do it more easily in bitcoin.
reply
223 sats \ 5 replies \ @kruw 13h
That's why we fought a block size war in 2017 to limit supply.
reply
182 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 10h
Well....the result of SegWit actually increased the limit by 4x during that time. However the popular narrative tends to ignore that. I often wonder if miners today (with extremely low fees) have benefited or been harmed by that....hard to know....
That argument is actually immaterial to the larger point. Such a concession to data-storage in core is a signal that developers agree with that use case.
What you incentivize you will get more of....
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @LibreHans OP 13h
The limit doesn't ensure the space is used for electronic cash
reply
121 sats \ 2 replies \ @kruw 13h
Correct. If you want to ensure the space if used in a certain way, then you can enforce that with your node and fork the blockchain.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibreHans OP 13h
Ah, so you're in the filters don't work camp, when the evidence show they do, like Chris explained
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kruw 13h
Filters don't work, here's proof:
reply
906 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 9h
I wonder why he did not simply engage on Stack Exchange and then link to it from his Twitter if he wanted to get views. This does not seem like a good-faith technical engagement attempt with Pieter.
As opposed to Twitter?!
Stack exchange?!
At least, leave a message to Pieter you are moving the discussion to Twitter if you truly want to engage with him.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 5h
he doesn't want to engage with him, he wants to goon.
reply
363 sats \ 5 replies \ @fourrules 11h
I think this is a Chesterton's gate. If Core developers were conservative, which is what you would hope, then they would increase the default slowly, maybe doubled every year, up to the point where it was meaningless because the network continued to function as normal and nobody changed the defaults.
If Bitcoiners found an increased level of undesirable spam they could move to knots.
If enough people moved to knots Core would have to respond to market demand for their software implementation and either reverse course or slow the rate of increase, or even incorporate the filters functionality from knots.
The urgency and unwillingness to compromise belies a kind of arrogance, a lack of ability to imagine that they might be driven by ego rather than reason, exemplifying the fact that wisdom and IQ are not in any way correlated. It doesn't matter how smart you are, everyone is susceptible to motivated reasoning and the poison of friend-enemy distinctions, which cloud judgment. Cliques and in-groups, even if they form around elite expertise, are as susceptible to these flaws in human psychology as any other groups.
It usually takes extremely wise people, either founders or respected leaders, even with less expertise, to keep elite groups from succumbing to these negative patterns. Equally, there are snakes in any network that are adapt at manipulating the egos of experts in their favour.
Two eyes bring perspective.
reply
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @LibreHans OP 11h
Thank you. The jump from 80 to 100000 bytes is radical, and the motivation seems also pretty clear. Sjors admitted [1] they want to avoid repeated debates by going straight to unlimited. If they were confident in their analysis, they'd welcome the gradual testing approach to prove their theories.
[1] https://bitcoinops.org/en/podcast/2025/05/06/ around minute 15
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 9h
Central planners always discount the risk of unintended consequences.
reply
121 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 8h
I'm very comfortable saying that Sjors is intellectually lazy outside of the narrow domain that he wants to be working "productively" in. He just doesn't want to consider the ideas that:
- once you agree that non-monetary transactions are definitionally spam (he doesn't, meaning there is evidence of cultural shift within the core developer community) then no methods of reducing those transactions entering anyone's memepool is akin to censorship
- it is not a problem that spam reduction and ongoing cat and mouse game that is never "won" even if he specifically doesn't want to work on it directly, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so
- it is not a problem that people "look" at their memepool by auto-filtering out transactions based upon certain criteria that they may set subjectively, choosing which to ignore entirely or which they don't wish to relay, therefore signalling to miners what kinds of transactions are valid to them at the policy layer. There is no reason to believe that this leads to censorship due to orthogonality. To reduce bitcoins censorship resistance almost all full nodes to coordinate in order to achieve an effective sybil attack by ignoring transactions that meet certain criteria beyond those that people overwhelmingly agree are non-monetary.
- The argument that all transactions that are consensus valid should be relayed and that the network only really needs blocksonly full nodes in large quantity equally applies to bitcoin node implementations. Bitcoin implementations that add filters are consensus valid, and thus in principle and in practice the policy layer governed by node runners policing what is and is not an acceptable transaction to relay on a one-node-one-vote model of consensus has always existed.
Bitcoiners need to understand the classical legal concepts of malum in se (bad in itself, e.g. murder, or in our case "invalid transactions") and malum prohibitum (bad by regulation, e.g. cheating on taxes, or in our case spam).
Malum prohibitum is the regulatory layer, which are constantly refined and imbued with the values that dominate the current context.
With this current episode in Bitcoin's history, even if we have a miner and temporary setback where obscene and illegal content gets added to the chain, it is unlikely to result in a hard fork, but get interpreted as the kind of original sin that stains the network and provokes the flowering of hundreds of alternative implementations, forks of Core, that will succeed at regulating in spite of what the current crop of central planners think.
Just as it is impossible to stop spammers, it is equally impossible to stop nodes regulating the the network at the policy layer.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibreHans OP 7h
Malum prohibitum vs malum se is a great point, thanks. I've been saying for a while, removing the relay limit is like legalizing burglary because some homes are broken into.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 7h
Legalising burglary would be a consensus change, most people would agree that theft is malum in se. Its more like legalising insider trading, or tax evasion, or pissing on a public square. Worse in fact, it's denying the right of anyone to make pissing on the public square just because there is no immediate and direct victim. Some people believe that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, and it's impossible to say that they are wrong. You just have to fight them until that opinion is irrelevant.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 14h
https://xcancel.com/cguida6/status/1968117953871720463
reply