good catch

unclench and use up to 4mb.

on a quiet day you can probably get it in for the price of a fancy latte.

If you want spam stick it in a block lol!

All you are doing is punching yourself in the nuts.

there were theoretical benefits to privacy that haven't materialized yet.

bwcause no one actually cares about privacy.

but I say give it a little time.

main one that comes to mind is multisig indistinguishable from single sig transaction .

nice infographic.

can you add links to authoritative source material this was based on? (bips, canonical wikis, etc)

"I don't mind paying 5%"

No homie what you mind is paying 5% and still getting exit scammed by your custodian anyway.

Lol great clip though.

no, the tweet doesn't say this.

cypherpunk isn't pro spam. the argument is over how to limit spam.

hashcash was one way.

Bitcoin (normal core Bitcoin defaults) is a better way. Impose costs on spammers so they can't dominate use of the system.

Knots argues core doesn't go far enough, not that core doesn't limit spam.

You only get spam now because Bitcoin is underutilized because of ETFs and whatnot. My feeling is this will get fixed organically just with the passage of time, more users will utilize Bitcoin and the spammers will mostly get priced out.

But I suppose a 'non filters" way to fight spam would be a soft fork to idk maybe 50 bytes instead of a thousand, forcing regular users to outbid spam. But no one wants to do this.

But it is more cypherpunk ethos than filters.

Filters is whack a mole. You want to fix the problem at the source, by metering utilization.

what problem is covenants trying to solve?

"I need shitcoins on Bitcoin to ROI my investors before they break my kneecaps." that one doesn't count.

also (ibid)

"One of Bitcoin’s most fascinating properties is the fact you can have a level of security that once was only available to the people in power. You can verify that a payment is valid (you’re not receiving fool’s gold) without any special tool. You can make sure the monetary policy is being followed without needing to trust anyone’s information. But to achieve this, you have to run a node. Your security dramatically declines if you’re using someone else’s node. But running a node has historically been an onerous task, requiring a good 24/7 running computer and a good internet connection. Floresta changes that by enabling you to run a full node on almost any device, without hassle."

"Floresta uses BIP158 compact block filters to search for your wallet’s historical transactions and monitor new blocks."

an embeddable utreexo library / node. lightweight yet fully validating.

The future is decentralized and private.

Glad that helped!

In category theory language (mathy) blocks are arrows and utxo sets are objects. Blocks transform utxo sets. Or you could say that the utxo set is state and blocks are state functions that modify state.

an interesting intuition here is to shift focus of attention from the blockchain to the the utxo set. Every possible blockchain maps to a single utxo set, and I believe the inverse is also true (though I am not 100% about that one, need more coffee). But I think these are 1 to 1 (in math, an isomorphism. again, needs double checking).

Another thing we are ignoring is that because of orphan blocks it’s really a “blocktree (directed tree)” not a “blockchain.” Blockchains are paths in the directed block tree. Technically every node in the tree maps to a utxo set, including the orphans. But for consensus purposes you only care about the longest paths (blockchains) in the tree (hence chain) and ignore the other paths (dead blockchains) and the utxo sets they map to.

Anyway to validate a fresh transaction you need the utxo set, not blocks. The only reason you need blocks is to get the utxo set in the first place. The only reason you need the arrows is to get the objects.

When the utxo set was "light" in terms of resources required, no one thought about it too much. It stayed light as long as utxos got spent as fast as they were created basically.

But with ordinals bloat that's no longer true. Spam is breaking that rule and there is no upper limit on the theoretical size of the utxo set.

Once you verify a block you're done with it. You can't care about the "arrows" just about the objects, and really you only care about one object, the last utxo set at the end of the longest chain.

The older bitcoin gets, the bigger the objects (utxo sets) get compared to the arrows (blocks). We are getting to the point now where we can’t ignore the resources used by the utxo sets itself.

Utreexo remedies this by applying some basic optimizations to the utxo set that were ignored at bitcoin’s creation time because compared to blocks, the resources needed to wrangle utxos in practice was small.

But now they that’s not true anymore so we have to fix it.

Luckily there is a way and utreexo is it.

I think it's safe to ignore Core / Knots drama and treat jpeg spam utxo bloat as a forcing function for eventual universal adoption of utreexo, including filtering nodes like knots that hate it but oh well too bad for them.

Given the economic incentives long term, I see no other way.

Spam is a sideshow indeed "like arguing about the Polkas" in good morning Vietnam is a good way to put it. @028559d218 is right.

"there are arguments .. somewhere can't link to them, I don't respond to bad faith comments"

LOL

these are exactly the arguments for knots.

Rather than subsidize "white" miners in this convoluted way, why not have users donate to ALL miners by stuffing data into op returns at a fee rate high enough and with a mempool backlog large enough to deter non op return data utxo bloat (aka spam).

if spammers bid more aggressively, greater good minded users can use cpfp or other mechanisms to increase their own bid.

I doubt many users would want to use wallets that forced to donate to an anti spam fund like this.

But they might equally not want to donate to the anti spam fund the other way. And at least this way doesn't introduce a state attack vector.

Adam back wants to shift utxo bloat control (aka anti spam aka censorship) to users / wallets, who would subsidize miners who block spam.

Blocking spam sounds like a good thing. But can we really tell what is spam? Won't the jpegs just keep getting sneakier and sneakier. and it becomes a spy vs spy red queens race and opens a censorship attack vector to boot?

I agree utxo bloat is a problem but idk if this is a solution.

If wallet subsidies push data into prunable op_returns, maybe that's a good thing.

But a) will users pay the extra fee, even if it's tiny? b) will wallet maintainers be able to resist state address and mpubkey whitelists when this is inevitably attempted?

maybe accepting centralization risk of utxo bloat is better than centralization risk of opening wallet filters as a state attack vector.

don't be such a pessimist, dekulakization can work, we just need to fine tune it better.

core nodes relay, knots nodes do not.

iiuc.