pull down to refresh
3694 sats \ 19 replies \ @broadmode 9 Dec 2023 freebie \ on: On Ocean Mining Pool, Inscriptions and Luke bitcoin
-
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.
-
#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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
GFY.
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.
reply
It's a startup. Sv2 is on their roadmap.
They even went live with an outdated version of Knots that didn't filter inscriptions.
reply
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')
- 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.
- 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.
- 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