pull down to refresh

River CEO Leishman take on OP_RETURN. Is he right that debate is overdramatic?
420 sats \ 15 comments \ @realBitcoinDog 12h bitcoin
At @River we will continue to run Bitcoin Core because it is the only properly maintained Bitcoin node software. The Bitcoin Core dev team is highly competent and dedicated to the long-term success of the network. The current state of the debate around OP_RETURN relay rules is the result of overdramatizing a nuanced technical decision regarding tx standardness rules. Running poorly maintained forks of Bitcoin (with their own large flaws) because of this minor technical debate is an overreaction IMO.
No Bitcoin Core dev wants the blockchain spammed with data because they are the ones forced to deal with the scaling issues and edge cases that follow. However, the reality today is that consensus rules allow transactions with large amounts of data in OP_RETURN, regardless of mempool policy! So, the broader debate here is twofold:
  1. People want to put data onchain and they will do so with or without OP_RETURN limits. There is nothing stopping these people from skipping the mempool and submitting nonstandard txs directly to a mining pool today, or using even uglier approaches that bloat the UTXO set (even worse for the network). If we want to actually “fix” this, we would need a consensus fork, not a mempool rule change. The decision to change the standardness rules to allow these txs to be relayed seems reasonable and not a big deal.
  2. The divergence between standardness rules and consensus rules: There are many transactions one could make that are valid by consensus rules that cannot be broadcast to the network today because they are “nonstandard”. This does not stop a miner from including the transactions in a block. High divergence between standardness rules and consensus rules leads to complexity in the Bitcoin Core software and causes problems for block relay efficiency when people start sending non-standard transactions direct to miners. Starting to move away from this divergence seems reasonable, but needs to be done carefully. We can likely never fully delete standardness rules but I understand the goal to reduce complexity here.
This debate should remain objective and technical. It’s being blown way out of proportion. Remember, the vast majority of Bitcoin Core devs deeply care about the long-term health of Bitcoin and have dedicated their careers to getting Bitcoin where it is today. https://x.com/leishman/status/1921746985129799933?s=46&t=AJLfWYMcFR4tAoyfIomXHw
write
preview
related posts
1458 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 12h
In my opinion he is probably correct. Many of the statements, to include those made by 'team core' in the btc++ debate were presented more logically, ethically, and economically (based on the research I've done) and I can't say the say for 'team filter'.
There was more "OK here are the facts" and "here's what we know" presented by 'team core.' 'Team filter' IMO was more emotional and ideological... but less technically-accurate from what I understand.
What's unfortunate I believe is the accusations of corruption, compromise, or 'buy-offs' by the shipcoiners directed at some of the Core developers. Saying something untrue over and over (that core is "compromised") in a way that's not technically, economically, or ethically consistent... does not make it true and it really harms the arguments of the filterers/pro-mempool people that don't really have consistent arguments to begin with.
IMO the evidence is on-chain anyway. If 'team filter' was so concerned about 'low fees' and being "priced out" by JPEGS... then they would be chomping-at-the-bit to spend and use "bitcoin the money". Yet... sometimes when fees are low they are nowhere to be seen? Talk is cheap, period. And Bitcoin is ultimately how we use it and what we pay for. [My 2 sats]
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @usagi 10h
First of all, I'll note that Leishman is not a neutral third-party observer – he has ties to Core:
https://xcancel.com/UnderCoercion/status/1921799206198444378
I think this is important to point out as a lot of people have given up on trying to understand the technical arguments and instead are relying on appeals to authority. Appeals to authority are much less effective when the authority is biased.
As far as addressing his arguments, I made an attempt to do so here:
https://xcancel.com/RIPreason/status/1921764767108325772
And I've lightly edited these arguments and presented them again on SN here:
#978698
I am just a guy on the internet that wants to see Bitcoin succeed as sound money, which is why I'm pro-Knots. I have absolutely zero connection with anyone on either side. I am also a non-expert. I've tried to piece together what I can by reading, watching, and perhaps most importantly, thinking and writing.
The more I (think I) understand about the technical side, the more I have to assume that those experts who are basically saying "relax, this is a nothingburger" and trying to shove this change through have ulterior motives – such as Leishman above, or the main Q&A thread on SN, which conveniently doesn't mention the points I've made (to my knowledge – I haven't read the entire thing).
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 8h
There is no "main Q&A thread on SN". Many stackers have posted different threads on this and I think they're all just trying to get their heads around it. Most of us aren't experts either.
reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 8h
I thought this was the thread. No?
#971277
This could be stickied to the top...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 7h
Perhaps I misunderstood "main thread" to imply there was an official SN thread about this topic, rather than the most popular thread about it.
reply
127 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 11h
I've pretty much tuned it out. Egos have taken over. I don't see this as being an major issue either direction and those that are losing their minds and saying they will be done with bitcoin if they lose... bye.
I have zero problem with the debate and disagreement by the way, its mostly ego.
reply
35 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 12h
Yes. Worth doing though even as pointless as it seems.
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 11h
Spoken like a seasoned software engineer :)
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @BallLightning 10h
This is kind of incorrect. Furthermore "silencing" people totally destroyed the core devs credibility even if they were 100% technically correct. Trust is hard to gain, easy to lose. Sorry.
reply
63 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 10h
how did the core devs silence people? genuine question, i haven't been following this that closely
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BallLightning 3h
Yes.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @OT 10h
IDK. What if more node runners were running these filters and also creating their own blocks. We might see a lot less spam hitting the chain. I don't see why this isn't at least worth a try.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 2h
I am anti-spam in Bitcoin and use Bitcoin Knots. There are many more of node runners like me. CEOs, MBAs and other suits centrally spamming our network will not overrule our sovereignity. I laugh at the walls of texts they publish to manipulate public opinion.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9h
It seems over dramatized to me...
And, my struggles with IBD and the bloated UTXO set have made me more sympathetic to Core #978269
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 12h bot
https://xcancel.com/leishman/status/1921746985129799933
reply