reply on: JPEGS or no JPEGS... Bitcoin dies without Fee Pressure. THAT is the Truth \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

264 sats \ 10 replies \ @Artilektt 1 May \ on: JPEGS or no JPEGS... Bitcoin dies without Fee Pressure. THAT is the Truth bitcoin

I'm not against them being able to do it, that ship has sailed, I think in this case the issue is taking this decision about what's in someone's mempool away from the node runner. There's also this issue in how core is coming across with this decision. This ivory tower-ism, condescension and holier than thou shit coming from Core is gross frankly. I'm pretty shocked at the behavior.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 1 May

Hey, may I ask what you where you perceived the sense of condescension? Is this coming from reading the PR comments, the mailing list thread, or are you getting that sense via the conversation others are having about the situation?

12 sats \ 1 reply \ @Artilektt 2 May

From the active participants on X and nostr primarily

66 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 2 May

I see thanks. In case that you are spending a lot of time being angry about this, may I suggest that you read the discussion on the mailing list (https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ)? I think it’s fairly readable and doing so would allow you to form your own opinion on the points brought up and the style of discussion.

122 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 OP 1 May

I'm not against them being able to do it, that ship has sailed, I think in this case the issue is taking this decision about what's in someone's mempool away from the node runner.

I agree completely. Regardless of default policy... the choices for noderunners (with regards to arbitrary data) should be clear, easy to understand, and optionable by the person running the software.

Do you accept the 'arbitrary data' or not into Mempools? Check or uncheck. Do you want op_return? Check or uncheck. If you do, what is op_return's size limit? Check/uncheck etc.

There's also this issue in how core is coming across with this decision. This ivory tower-ism, condescension and holier than thou shit coming from Core is gross frankly.

While I agree to some extent... there is vigorous debate going on in the Github discussion pages (for the PR) and anyone can make their voice heard. There are logical arguments on both sides... and some amount of moderation is necessary.

The best thing to come out of this in my opinion, is the widespread recognition that there is Knots, Libre, and Core and people can and should choose which one they want to run.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 3 May

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 3 May

Why am I not surprised Voorhees has his fingers all over this

26 sats \ 1 reply \ @Artilektt 1 May

If anyone can make their voice heard why did Mechanic get banned for simply pointing out Lopp's conflict of interest?

175 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

Lopp's conflict of interest is not a technical matter. If said conflict resulted in salient technical objections, those could have been raised.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 1 May

banning the guy who reiterates a comment that was hidden which brought to light a potential conflict of interest is a terrible fucking look.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheCharlatan 4 May

For what it's worth the issue of removing the option was raised pretty much immediately during review of the pull request by other Bitcoin Core contributors. It was then also discussed in a separate issue and on the mailing list. Seems like the current momentum is towards changing the default, but keeping the option.