There's been a pretty big flare up in the Bitcoin community about Ocean Mining's two recent blocks. Namely, that they didn't include certain transactions designed to use the block space for something other than its monetary transactional uses. Indeed, many influencers, especially those that are pro-BRC20 and Ordinals, are condemning this course of action as censorship.
In a sense, this is exactly what all pools do. They create a block template for everyone else to mine. In that sense, each miner to a pool is really renting the pool hash rate and the pool does the work of using that hash rate to create blocks, whatever they may be. But it's a bit disingenuous to complain specifically about Ocean, since lots of pools have made blocks that didn't create the optimal profit-driven block.
Not every pool makes the maximal amount of fees for a block, whether because they have bad software, certain policies or just because the block was found before a block template could be constructed. The optimum is an ideal and though the modern economic assumption of idealized homo economicus would create these blocks each time, we don't have a steady-state mining economy so not everyone mines the theoretic optimum.
In a sense, the analysis of pools and the block templates these critics make is flawed because they assume some optimized economy. Given ideal conditions, of course, there is an optimal set of transactions you accept to increase fees. Over a long enough time period, those should result in more profit which get spread over the participants which should make the pool more popular, making those that don't perform the optimum lose profit and eventually bankrupt. But that's a very narrow analysis based purely on monetary incentives.
We don't live in under ideal conditions and situations change all the time. Basic things, like getting a block template ready quickly after a block is found is an optimization that's difficult and still not completely solved. But there's also the opinions of the miners themselves. Are they all strictly profit driven?
Think about normal businesses. Why do they offer fair trade coffee? From a purely monetary perspective, fair trade coffee doesn't make any sense. They're more expensive for the same good. From a profit-maximizing analysis that MBAs are so fond of, the non-fair trade coffee would put the fair trade coffee out of business. But yet, in the real world, they do not because people care more than just the good itself, but what it took to make the good. In other words, the homo economicus analysis of economic situations rarely is the optimum for the real world. There are other considerations other than profit that go into any business.
And that's really at the heart of what's being argued here. Luke believes that inscriptions are a waste of block space, a public nuisance and that even if his pool participants have to take a loss, that it's worthwhile because of the public good that it does. In other words, he sees these inscriptions as immoral and that the price he's willing to pay is fees that he would otherwise have gotten.
People are acting like this is some sort of affront to market forces or game theory and that the only consideration he should have is like that of homo economicus, whether he makes more profit or less. But this is a very fiat/Keynesian way of looking at the whole picture. People are more than just profit-maximalization machines and mining pool participants are no different.
Indeed, that's the impression I got from the Ocean Mining Pool summit I went to a few weeks ago. They are that response to the many mining pools that are doing unethical things like not paying out their participants for fees that come in off band.
The calculation that Luke has made is that being moral, that is not polluting blocks, is worth the 1% loss in fees. Given what I know about Luke, even a 90% loss in fees is unlikely to sway him. Morals have a place in any ecosystem because they, too, have value. A mining pool that doesn't burdens nodes with extra data that they have to persist has positive communal value. A mining pool that does the opposite has detrimental communal value. And from Luke's perspective, not burdening nodes is important enough that he chooses not to include them in his block templates.
This moral reasoning is not something that is welcomed by a lot of people and it's hard to miss that many of the critics are creating ordinals, BRC-20 and so on. They want to run this centralized scheme over Bitcoin and make money. In other words, they have a strong economic interest in getting their transactions included and shout censorship whenever they're not.
But we must be careful, because this is not the same as, say, the OFAC prohibition list. And this is where things become a little harder to explain because most people have no sense of the difference between centralized rules being enforced under threat of violence and bottom-up moral behavior slowly adopted. But what Luke is doing is very much bottom up. He's specifically doing something out of moral conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, you can understand why he's doing it, particularly the moral reasoning. This is different than a centralized mandate with threats of violence against those that don't comply.
I believe that what Luke is doing is a good thing. He's showing his convictions and reasoning about why inscriptions are bad through these templates. The participants are free to move if they disagree. I suspect, though, that there are many that agree with him and they'll vote with their hash rate.
For homo economicus, something like fair trade coffee does not make sense. Yet people gladly pay a little more for it because they believe that it ultimately helps those people produce and live a better life. I believe what Luke and Ocean are doing is similar. They're offering less-bloated blocks even at the cost of some fees.
  1. Core's plan was always to roll out 80 byte OP_RETURN incrementally by starting with 40 to see if it broke anything and then ramping shortly up to the intended 80.
  2. #Bitcoin Core, having finished that project, has had 80 byte OP_RETURN for nearly a decade now. 85%+ miners have been set to 80 bytes for the same amount of time. Read the commit log. Read the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
  3. Luke admitted on Shitter/X that he only went along with the Core team because he had his own fork where he would make up his own standard.
  4. Now that Jack has invested in Luke to decentralize mining, he's cast a shadow over the Ocean.xyz launch by hijacking the conversation and torpedoing their marketing to serve his own vendetta against the Core team.
  5. Whirlpool transactions are trivial to detect and Luke could whitelist them no problem. Instead we get gaslighting about decentralization and freedom while Luke kneecaps #Bitcoin fungibility.
  6. What's more centralized? The development process in bitcoin:master with a decade+ track record, ~1000 developers, and 20,000+ code reviews, or Knots, where one dude makes god commits daily, breaking critical aspects of #Bitcoin?
  7. Until Ocean.xyz launches #StratumV2, it's just another gatekeeper. Ordinals is going to run out of customers like every other shitcoin. We don't need to compromise Core just because Luke didn't get his way 10 years ago.
  8. GFY.
reply
You need to educate yourself about the differences between hard consensus rules and mempool policy. The latter is 100% in the hands of every individual node runner, pool operator, and soon every miner once Stratum v2 gains traction.
As the Samourai crew likes to say, "Route around Core".
reply
Why launch a mining pool with the promise to "decentralize mining" only to cast a shadow over your own release by disbanding policy in #Bitcoin Core that's been standard for nearly 10 years?
Like it or not, Core made 80 byte OP_RETURN part of the network protocol a decade ago and any reduction of that constitutes a breaking change. Owness on Ocean.xyz to fess up and fix it.
Luke should also apologize for tanking Ocean.xyz's launch by sucking the air out of their "decentralization" marketing with his old OP_RETURN feud with Core.
Of course he and anyone else is free to fork, but the space is also free to come to a consensus as to whether it is good and proper or malicious and destructive.
reply
That's the part you don't understand, neither is Core any sort of official Bitcoin client, nor is there such a thing as a "standard mempool policy".
The 83 (not 80) OP_RETURN limit is not part of the "network protocol" by any stretch of the imagination, full stop.
It's mempool policy, and all mempool policy can be set at will by any individual node runner, who might also be a miner or not. It's just how Bitcoin works.
I have been dropping all unconfirmed transactions containing inscriptions since February from my personal node, for instance. 100% fair game.
People are just surprised because they're getting educated about some aspect of Bitcoin they didn't understand or know about.
reply
No, Oomah, you don't understand.
You are free to fork #Bitcoin but you are not free of the consequences of that fork.
#Bitcoin is a network where participants have implicit and explicit agreements. Mempool policy is a facet of that contract, and 80 bytes indeed has been standardized over a decade.
Luke can fork #Bitcoin. Luke can make up his own op_return value. Luke can undermine the Ocean.xyz launch.
And he has.
reply
Of course we can. It's you who still hasn't understood that those of us who are playing with our nodes' mempool policies aren't interested in any kind of fork.
We're staying. And you'll like it. Eventually.
reply
Mempool policy is a facet of that contract
I thought that's the whole point of Sv2... to move mempool policy out of core.
reply
Exactly, that's why it's so strange to see Ocean.xyz make their entire launch about kicking off ordinals and whirlpool when it should be about miner autonomy via Sv2.
reply
make their entire launch about kicking off ordinals and whirlpool
WTF are you even saying? their "entire" launch didn't mention whirlpool at all, as far as I understand.
Ordinals has the appearance of being a spam-attack problem now. Miner centralization is a problem now.
People with an interest in whirlpool have had all the opportunity in the world to take advantage of that utility, and presumably they'll continue to do so until everybody trivially identifies and censors those transactions out of existence.
Samo's behavior is ugly and unnecessary. OCEAN is a hugely positive development. Whirlpool isn't as necessary as they would have their audience believe.
It's a startup. Sv2 is on their roadmap.
They even went live with an outdated version of Knots that didn't filter inscriptions.
Whirlpool transactions are trivial to detect and Luke could whitelist them no problem. Instead we get gaslighting about decentralization and freedom
Wait can somebody fill me in on what that means 🙄
reply
The 2 most unhinged parties in Bitcoin are going at it lol
reply
I still don't see where the "gaslighting" is
He just dodges and doesnt answer the question
reply
I think the original meaning of the comment was referring to Luke gaslighting people into thinking his fork changes are for decentralization and freedom while it breaks a core mixing service that some would argue is a vital component to that today.
reply
Twatter drama 👀🍿
reply
GFY.
well, your attitude sucks... and getting people to pick sides out of anger or resentment is what I would like to avoid.
Samourai has given me bad mojo from the outset. There's no reason to believe that they or Wasabi were ever anything other than spooks interested in scraping a bit of coin & covering up their own tracks. (I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Tor is an example of the power-hungry needing traffic-cover and making their utility public, under the guise of 'protecting freedom')
  1. trivial
if they're so trivial, then why pay Samo's SCODE for the convenience? must be nice to be able to burn BTC that you picked up at a centralized exchange. OFAC (or whomever) will do OFAC and chase you out of legitimate marketplaces with your tainted UTXOs... forward secrecy doesn't do much for you if you have centralized miners coerced into refusing to include your trivially identified postmix.
you could even build joins between your friends and save a lot. you'd probably learn a lot, too. (as would I, if I took that path).
your hobby of stashing joined coins in fear of the state is cute, much like my own, but the vast majority of users who pick up coins will do so in the future, with the implicit or explicit permission of whatever governance authority they live inside of.. it's sad, but true.
if samo disappears, it would be a bummer.. but I'd much rather see pleb miners with the ability to see where their hash is going.
  1. where one dude makes god commits daily, breaking critical aspects of #Bitcoin?
it's not your network. the only commits that could break it are the ones that would cause a chain fork... which is the beauty of the protocol.
  1. compromise Core
some of us think core is a compromise until we have significantly more devs invested in working with the protocol.
(( a note to @broadmode : I had to delete that other comment because I confused your nymm with Lowry's, my bad)
reply
0 sats.
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
The cognitive dissonance of so many here.
"I like the free market unless it goes against my own values"
Let Luke do his thing. If it's viable for him and people want to support him, all the better. If it's not, it'll disappear soon enough.
His business, his rules. That's not censorship.
I don't often agree with Jimmy, but this time, good to hear a voice of reason.
reply
You are free to fork #Bitcoin but you are not free of the consequences of that fork.
You are free to censor #Whirpool but you are not free of the consequences of that censorship.
#Bitcoin is an open space, but every consequential change will be thoroughly scrutinized by it's participants and just because you are 'free' to do so does not mean your actions will not be debated.
So few seem to understand this.
reply
You are free to fork #Bitcoin but you are not free of the consequences of that fork. You are free to censor #Whirpool but you are not free of the consequences of that censorship.
This looks like the language somebody who was manufacturing dissent would use.
reply
Odd way to lose an argument.
reply
Only @jimmysong has earn't the right to have a post this long with so little formatting be read so intently.
I think you are right on point, I don't mind ordinals and ERC20's, but at the same time I like Ocean pool more now. Bottom up efforts using bitcoin consensus type mechanisms should not be confused with old fashioned top down censorship like OFAC.
reply
Agree, and would add that once Stratum v2 is in place then that decision making is further decentralized.
If a significant amount of hash starts to filter out inscriptions then it will just make them more expensive, not censor them.
And sounds like Whirlpool (which is a great service which I use) could change their implementation if it starts to become too expensive because of the OP_RETURN limit.
People making this debate ideological and catastrophising it should consider viewing it more pragmatically.
reply
What I sincerely can't understand is why you would launch a venture where decentralization and #stratumv2 are the marketed goals and then disband the standard mempool policy of the last 10 years.
Now the entire Ocean.xyz conversation has been sullied by this absurd and tired OP_RETURN war.
If Luke won't be able to dictate miners soon, then why on earth kick up a shit storm in the short period of time where he can dictate to the pool? Why not just stick with the policy rules in 85%+ standard miners.
Imagine if, instead of censoring Whirlpool, Ocean went out with OFAC-compliant blocks only. This is Wasabi-level regardation.
reply
I guess he's a better engineer than a marketer
reply
Let's hope so. Luke's Bitcoin is more than 2000 commits behind bitcoin:master, so I won't be surprised if more unappealing differences are uncovered in the coming weeks/months.
Profit is the only thing that matters.
There might be an argument that the ordinals clog of the timechain reduces the value of Bitcoin and thus reduces profits of miners.
But there is no damn altruistic/collectivist argument that works. You can take your “fair trade” coffee and shove it!
This is a cold numbers game and if you don’t like it then don’t play.
reply
Simply not true. Bitcoin Core has had spam filters since 2010.
There's potentially lots of whacky/malicious transactions that miners aren't picking for their block templates.
reply
But there is no damn altruistic/collectivist argument that works.
Then why all this worry with Ocean's policy? Most miners just won't mine with them.
reply
deleted by author
reply
They reduce the throughput for useful transactions and make useful transactions more expensive. Also, they make it more burdensome to run a full node, therefore decreasing decentralization and making bitcoin more fragile.
Ordinal shills are in a lose-lose proposition. They harm themselves (by wasting their money) and harm others (the definition of stupid). Ultimately they will lose, but in the meantime they are making things more difficult for bitcoiners.
reply
The whole point of Bitcoin is for the participants to not judge what "useful" is. Bitcoin is not designed to be cheap and it's only as expensive as the demand for it. Anyone can take the initiative to enact their own policy so I won't yell too much at that anymore, but decreasing decentralization via usage is not a good argument imo.
The whole point of consensus is to make sensible limits that prevent the crossing of the threshold into being insufficiently decentralized. The agreement to these limits pre-inscriptions indicate we find the growth rate of the blockchain with those parameters acceptable. In more concrete terms, with 525600 minutes in a year, 52560 10-minute intervals, and 4mb for unpruned blocks we'd be agreeing to an approximate max growth-rate of ~210GB per year. So now let's look at the cost for that.
"...there has been an 87.4 percent $/GB decrease since 2009, from $0.114 to just over $0.014."
With around a penny per gigabyte, 210GB is less than 3 dollars a year to support. For pruned nodes the data requirements drop to ~53GB which is even less. Thus I wouldn't say storage costs make the network non-trivially more fragile. The increased bandwidth that comes with large transactions also contribute to the decentralization, but not to an unreasonable extent for most node-runners.
reply
reply
deleted by author
reply
It’s the only steel man I could come up with in support of the censorship
It’s not a good argument
reply
You wouldn't understand, as it doesn't affect you.
reply
I think as a user of Bitcoin, and not as some kind of censorship police, I would simply look at the decision and ask, "Does this make me more happy to use Bitcoin?"
Does supporting inscriptions make me more happy to use Bitcoin?
No. I don't use inscriptions. I prefer to make regular transactions more frequently and cheaply.
Does supporting censorship of transactions related to known theft addresses make me more happy to use Bitcoin?
No. It reduces my faith in Bitcoin's neutrality.
I think both these statements can be true. I think there is a difference between spam and free speech. Of course there is a slippery-slope argument to be made about where the line is drawn between what we consider to be trash and valuable speech. Especially in today's political climate.
But I think there is a line. And while we should tread carefully, every system is vulnerable to becoming inundated with unwanted noise which actually becomes a censorship mechanism itself.
Imagine twitter, full of bots (okay, it already is) but like imagine it 1,000,000 times worse. Literally unusable. You never see relevant posts. You need a signal-to-noise system to even have free speech.
Imagine a forum, full of spam posts about viagra. Sure, it's free speech. It's great the forum doesn't block them. But spam is spam, and people can't even get their real opinions heard.
Inscriptions are hindering the free-flow of censorship-free transactions. I think there is an argument to be made that keeping a tidy, noise-free system is an important function to free speech.
And that we don't dictate the content of the message. But we do dictate a DDOS attack of content which hinders freely flowing messages of any type hurts the system more than helps it.
reply
I think this way of explaining things was well done. With high fees there is at least something positive in this noise is it forced me to look into Liquid. So in the absolute I think this noise is putting forward a problem which would have occurred anyway in the future. Yet we are being forced to use Liquid or Lightning by basically spamming the network. I would have preferred a more natural way of using Bitcoin, like creating transactions to... transact.
reply
To peg onto this, if everyone is censored then are some point there will be uncensored transactions because the currency is locked up. Unlocking the currency may be necessary to settle a financial argument. Or the financial argument will settle some other way.
It's either useful or useless. Tap dancing for the audience. Dodging rotten tomatoes. Avoiding the gaffe. Or skillful navigation, ahead.
reply
Great writing. This gives me hope and makes me want to stack more.
reply
Ordinal theory is so dumb.
reply
Value is subjective. Always. Moral reasoning is more valuable to those participants of Ocean's pool, than maximizing transaction fees. I personally see nothing wrong with what they're doing. I wonder what percentage of the block reward in transaction fees they've missed out on though?
reply
Both blocks mined by ocean included inscriptions. Since they mined their second block, they upgraded their node(s) to a newer version of knots and are now filtering inscriptions and longer op_returns.
Ocean has not yet mined a block that filtered inscriptions.
reply
I notice you don't use the word bug.
reply
You could easily make the case that this is a bug, though.
If the space to transact is very limited, and suddenly the scope of the system is widened forcibly due to an unintended consequence of a recent soft fork, the transactors are kicked out of the limited space.
In fact people who want to use Bitcoin for other use cases than just transact have a large competitive advantage over transactors: https://nitter.net/oomahq/status/1729123347366285792
reply
If you are a holier-than-thou moralistic, that's your prerogative, but trying to impose your sanctimonious point of view to others is proselytism and you should be preaching instead of running a Bitcoin business. As long as Ocean allows for miners to build their own templates, they can do whatever they want, otherwise it's just an abuse of authority.
reply
Until Ocean.xyz launches #StratumV2, they're just another gatekeeper.
reply
He doesn’t seem moral to me. Not long ago he was advocating against self-custody
reply
Not including inscriptions is not the issue. but Not telling people is. It is his prerogative to build the template any way he wants but I should have all the info beforehand so I can make an informed decision to join his pool or not
reply
I'm not a fan of the analogy of fair trade coffee. I understand the point, but I would argue even "fair trade coffee" is a profit-driven motive designed to attract customers who care about it and build a reputation that marks their own shop as more moral than other shops, in order to bring in more business.
But similarly, perhaps Luke's decision is also profit-driven in the long-run. That Bitcoin's value proposition is greater than short-term fee maximization, and that ensuring Bitcoin is "spam-free" however he wants to define it, ensures that it can be used as a transaction mechanism to whatever degree it possibly can, and not a cloud JPEG storage server as it's primary function.
The survival of Bitcoin could bring more fees into Ocean long-term. But it's a bet, just like choosing fair trade coffee is a bet. We'll have to see.
reply
I mention kilowatts earlier #345253
Language has always been important to me. If my mom found out I lied I would get my ass beat. As I got older I could take a beating more and more and I could learn to lie better and better. Eventually I learned that if I didn't do anything that harmed others I wouldn't have to lie.
The very sophisticated business people of this world whether they are evil or they are good both understand that lying has karmic (kilowatt) consequences. The evil ones will convince someone else to lie, cheat and steal and build an empire of soldiers to do this. However at the top they document everything very precisely. The good ones will do the same but they build an empire based on integrity and honesty. The lines get blurred but as soon as discrepancy is found it is corrected to sell the lie or reinforce the truth.
This is why Movies exist showing dystopia and why product labels are full of poison. If it is written (karma, action, kilowatt production) then by extending labor to consume the product you are in essence accepting the consequences.
If a product brags about good practice and good ingredients then that product benefits from the purchasing power of moral people. Moral people are investigators. They will do the work to find the truth because it is important to their well being. On the other hand virtue signaling is shallow and the energy is low in these individuals they end up being soldiers in an evil man's army.
Many came to Bitcoin for the real money. After investigation they changed. Some maintained their evil and some maintained their good. Some changed. By being thoroughly honest we can access the kilowatts by producing them. With a network affect we help others succeed and that power increases. It's human action. When energy is concentrated in too small an area it will radiate or explode.
reply
reply
"80 bytes is standard policy on the network" -Adam Back
"Samourai has no obligation of any kind to 'fix', they're using network standard..." -Adam Back
"Luke often is correct, but sometimes only with a non-standard definition." -Adam Back
Facts are stubborn things.
reply
I find it ironic that those who demand sats to be fungible, will move to destroy the fungibility of hash power in the process. Thanks for building the drawbridge to let OFAC march right in.
what is even going on in this community.
If a pool has the moral authority to pick and choose transactions beyond basic SATs/vbyte, then users have a right to pick and choose satoshis based on their ordinal properties.
Meanwhile all this infighting has derailed a very real conversation about covenants and scaling Bitcoin / lightning in a high-fee environment, something that this community has been failing to address for far too long now.
Bitcoin is a greedy protocol. Y'all need to stop trying to turn it into a religion.
Can we please ignore Luke's trollpool and get back to work on solving real problems.
reply
The reality is that bitcoin is for anyone but bitcoin is not for everyone. Filtering txs you believe not to be valid is your right as a node and pool operator. We fought a scaling war to prove L1 is not viable for small txs at scale, this is why Lightning exists. Ordinals and other similar types of economic activities will be incentivized to move up to L2 and above over time.
reply
On point.
reply
reply
Bitcoin maxis are learning the hard way that mining is a fiat centrix venture, it's really hard to mine as a bitcoiner. Hashers, despite what many say, they don't give a fuck about Bitcoin. The reason Luke is pissing so so so many shitcoiners that started farting and dumping piss and feces onchain is all I need right now. I want them gone. No more brc or dick butt bullshit pics. Andb don't fucking say censoring, those scumbags are throwing at us all what they did in the past from icos to nfts onchain all together. Since Bitcoin is no shitcoin in order for them to sell in the bull they first need inventory, they can't click on to existence shit like what they did in the past. They have to pay, that's POW.
I can only hope we can create awareness through the coming bull to help ppl avoid all the scam that is coming in their direction. Most influencers won't talk about this since their pockets post bear market are starving AF.
Look what half exahash in a couple weeks can do.. this is so so so bullish. Fuck them.
reply
deleted by author
reply
I've argued with Luke online over about 10 items on Twitter. I still like Luke and respect him. Even his dumb-ass mask...
I also argue with my boss, his son and they argue with each other and me all day long. But, we still work together and build more piers that fetch sometimes the value of 3 Bitcoin!
We argue about politics, money, Bitcoin all kinds of things. We even argue over the plumb of a 35 foot pile driven into mud with the relation to the other piles. But, at the end of the day. We do the best product that few hurricanes can destroy. The reputation of the business is one where we don't take money up front. We also don't do everything a customer wants, especially if it's stupid and decreases the value of the product. We don't advertise. We have work up to 2 years in the pipeline.
Regarding Luke, I hate ordinals also. I'm no miner but the times I invested in mining I met assholes who were only interested in Fiat currency. I still would like to get into mining and Luke is opening a new route.
The free market is about what you are willing to do for someone else not accumulating FIAT CURRENCY that is going to zero.
reply
who goes around blocking anyone who dares to criticize him
Just average sedevacantist behavior. Unable to fathom other opinions, unable to have a discussion, unable to change their own opinion and being a crybaby about it in the end.
reply
I had to look up that word, sedaecavantist, nice usage.
reply
It's not censorship. Watch Giacomo Zucco's latest talk at Unconfiscatable.
reply
Thus the economic incentive to not censor. I get a weird feeling about LukeJr and Dorsey. I don't trust either TBH. Do I care that they have a pool, no not really.
Bitcoin Knots = Luke lol
deleted by author
reply
if the pool makes the way it constructs blocks public and auditable, and people agree to be a part of that pool, then nothing notable has happened here. there is nothing to discuss. if the miners values do not align with the pools values they can leave, instantly and without penalty.
we can only hope that ALL pools provide the public with their values in such detail, so that miners can decide for themselves whether or not they want to contribute to that pool.
bitcoin is for anyone, for any reason. that's why it's the best money.
reply
deleted by author
reply
That's an extremely emotional response to my post.
So miners shouldn't choose what they mine? Are you of the opinion that miners are slaves? Bitcoin is speech and if enough miners vote to include these transactions, they will be included. This applies to ALL transactions. Transactions don't care about your ideals.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Every miner already "censors" tx with more than 80 bytes in op_return. Why is that different than one miner "censoring" > 40 bytes? Bitcoin is "censoring" since day one my friend.
reply
deleted by author
reply
If you have a relative moral compass then your argument stands up. If you have a moral compass then your argument fails.
If I know my neighbor is doing something I don't like I don't have to broadcast his nonsense. It's not my moral duty to help him continue. If someone else broadcasts my neighbor's nonsense then that person is part of the cabal and they conspire together.
It's moral relativism that creates Fiat (literally by declaration -- "This is a transaction!", says the King.) That's what @jimmysong is saying. There may be situations in the future where electric companies tell miner pools that of they census transactions from public keys they will give them cheaper power.
The kilowatt is a measure of work. What you are willing to do as work is what the currency really is. This is why Karma (literally work in Sanskrit) is such a large spiritual concept.
Bitcoin is the ledger and it's the one we can write to and write on if we pay such and such price. If you are a miner Luke has given to a choice as none of the above.
But the way, Luke means light its root is Lux which is also the root for Lucifer. So there is that, too. But Luke does not mean Satan which is the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arab word for "opposition".
So what point are you trying to make?
Imagine calling yourself a Bitcoiner and not realizing Bitcoin has had "censorship" since day one.
Why is Bitcoin "censoring" my 5MB tx ?
235 sats \ 1 reply \ @clr 9 Dec 2023
Whatever you do as a bitcoin user, you are making a choice, and you cannot evade that. We are human beings, and we cannot be 100% objective. We are moral beings.
It's fine if you don't like the Knots (Luke's client) church, but be aware that you might be choosing the Core church. The fact that the vast majority of bitcoin users go along with Core, doesn't make it less of a church. Just be aware that whatever you choose, you are making a choice.
I don't want Core to have the monopoly on the doctrine. Therefore, I am glad that there are other options and interpretations. Diversity enrichs us. The blocks that Ocean mines are being accepted by others as valid; therefore they are in accordance with the principles of Bitcoin.
reply
I'm kind of parallel with your ideas here:
reply
No they're not. Every miner and node can configure these settings as they wish.
So you do care about the principles of Bitcoin? If Bitcoin was intended as a p2p electronic cash system, do you think that storing dickbutt jpegs on chain is part of those principles or ethos?
reply
You should care about it, inscriptions effortlessly crowding out monetary TXs erode the monetary properties of the Bitcoin network.
Also, I regret to inform you that your node is censoring plenty of valid TXs behind your back. The most obvious cases are TXs paying less than 0 s/vB or having an OP_RETURN over 80 bytes. These kind of filters are no different than the ones Knots is running. My understanding is that some of them can't even be turned off with configuration options.
reply
What does "don't care" mean here. Are you afraid to say "no"? It's not spam if they are willing to pay the high sats/vbyte fees. Free market economy. It seems to me that you agree with me and want to say "no" so why don't you just say it?
reply
deleted by author
reply
"I don't care because it doesn't affect me". Yikes.
reply
deleted by author
reply
You being so wokely offended by Ocean made my day. Thank you.
reply
Bro, you're running Umbrel & Microsoft... that's not nearly as hard as you're presenting yourself to be.
Relax. You're being led by the nose into an argument that doesn't need to be had. The worst thing to happen to decentralized mining in the last 10 years was Samourai's social attack on OCEAN.
Posting "based chad" memes under "toxic maxi" responses just looks like fangirl behavior. I say that as a toxic maxi.
reply