Thank you for your position gmaxwell — your arguments are more technically sound, and they convinced me that removing the limits is necessary.

I remember a time when WO wanted to wear their physical hats in the real world... That would have gone badly.

If I ever see someone flexing their wealth, be it bitcoin or anything else, my first thought is "what an asshole."

I will await  the changes to op_return and see if they hurt or if others are correct.

 We didn't even have computers when I was in high school let alone internet.  My parents second-mortgaged the house to get us a set of Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedias and if I couldn't find he information in there, I would head to the library.  For the most part, we were taught right from a text book so it was pretty easy to learn/study the material.  Nowadays there are no textbooks and while I might know how to solve the problems and get the correct answer,  I don't know how to show the methodology the teacher wants to see ie draw a proper free-body diagram to solve a physics problem and this is where YouTube comes in very handy.  They said textbooks were too expensive but now every kid gets a laptop and the school pays for software and it's not cheap.  When I was i school, they loaned you the textbooks and if you lost it, you bought it.  Anyway... the good old days aren't likely coming back.
 

thanks for the unfound accusations on my intentions/funding etc. I wish you good luck in your endeavors, that's all I can say at this point 

I appreciate the honorific, but unless you're in the business of handing out honory degrees I am not a PHD.

They won't. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Did I?   How is it relevant?

I don't know anything about this, if it's true, it sounds doubtful to me particularly since I was able to determine that a significant part of the ordinals ecosystem was in fact funded by Calvin Ayre, the same party funding Craig Wright's litigation against developers.

There are existent transactions on the network right now shoving data in unspendable outputs, some have been discussed previously in this thread.  I don't think I've made any arguments based on 'anticipating'.

You are continuing to debate a point I never made.

Re miners, several of the largest pools will outright accept nonstandard txn and mine them for a payment, this is well documented.  It's not clear to me if you're disagreeing with it or just doubting that it's used often for op_return vs non-standard in other respects.

Different time would be one where large miners were not allowing non-standard transactions and not being paid hundreds of millions of dollars for data traffic.  As far as education, I'm not aware of anything people are doing where their goals would be satisfied by just using a commitment, and in fact petertodd reports that OTS now handles an average of 2.1 commitments per second, so that is a significant fraction of the whole chains bandwidth being saved by actually handing commitments the right way.  The goal in originally limiting the size of op_return was to encourage users that could form their usage as a commitment to do so.


The hyperlink in your post didn't work for me but I dug through the PR and the quote is:


I think the comment speaks for itself just fine, there is absolutely nothing ridiculing about it (except towards inscriptions users).  And also, I fail to see how it contributes to a discussion on removing the op_return limit.

Where?

Ah, so that's what the false honorific was for.  I am not a "theoretician".   Particularly to this discussion, I *invented* compact blocks, and (with collaborators) *deployed it*, and brought it through numerous in production developments and evolution, so it is galling that you're attempting to dismiss without argument by damning me with faint praise of being a theoretician.


Your post went through numerous points, but none of them appear to make the case that eliminating that particular limit would cause any harm.   To make sure that I'm not missing any, allow me to make another pass on just that point:

- You suggest monkey jpegs won't shift to using OP_RETURN.  I agree.  This is not a reason that removing the op_return limit would be harmful.

- Core devs something with some person something another?   Of no relevance to the op_return limit and not something I know anything about.

- You claim I claim that there is an anticipation of not yet happened more harmful ways.   If so this is still not a reason removing the limit would be harmful.  But as a point of order, users stuffing data in 'fake address' outputs is a current thing, not an anticipated thing.

- You claim Pieter ridiculed users, I think you're mistaken (unless you're complaining that he insulted inscriptions users) but it's also of no relevant to the op_return limit.

- You claim (and I don't dispute though I haven't checked) that there are not that many non-standard op_return transactions being mined.  This is no a reason that removing the limit would be harmful, it is a confirmation of my point that they are being mined.

- You point out that inscriptions bloated the chainstate.  This is not a reason that removing the op_return limit would be harmful (they don't use op_return, but if they did it would reduce chainstate bloat, though I don't expect them to).

- "when Core devs themselves said things like use blocksonly or a bad and shaky claim that we will have utreexo or assumeutreexo in the future"  I have no idea what you're talking about, but again, it does not provide a reason that removing the op_return limit is harmful.

- You've vaguely referred to counter arguments to my point that mismatching relay with mining hurts propagation, which might be somewhat relevant but you haven't specified where so I don't know what you're talking about.  But that said even if my argument on why failing to disable the limit causes harm was in error, this is still not a reason that it would be harmful to disable the limit.

- You attempt to dismiss my credibility on technology I invented *and* deployed, by dismissing me as a theoretician and suggesting that unspecified "practical" people know better.  Yet again, not a reason it would be harmful to disable the limit.

- You suggest communications should improve, complain about moderation not having a good appearance. OK but, at this point you can sing it with me, still no reason removing the limit is harmful.

Have I understood correctly?

 Damn!  I was up all night trying to figure out how to get me some of this fungus.  Turns out this discovery was made 6 years ago and sadly, it doesn't actually turn other metals into gold but I suspected that due to the massive amounts of energy required for the transmutation of metals.  Instead, the fungus acts as a biological catalyst which can produce the necessary oxidants and ligands [molecules or ions that form a bond with a central metal atom] to dissolve gold and then incorporate it into it's biomass.  The gold has to already exist so we're not going to be able to run biological gold generators in out back yards with our used beer cans and brake rotors. 

 It essentially catalyzes this reaction somehow:

Au_(s) + O₂^- + 2 H₂O_(l) = Au(OH)₄^-  (log K₂₅ = -1.91)

O₂^- <-- this is known as superoxide and is a common byproduct of plant and fungal metabolic processes
(log K₂₅ = -1.91) <-- this negative value indicates that the reaction doesn't favour the right side under normal circumstances (which makes sense since gold is highly inert)

 That sucks.  Hopefully bitcoin will moon to make up for that disappointment.

Katie Hobbs vetoed the AZ Strategic Bitcoin Reserve! What a worthless corrupt Governor we have.

The gold re-evaluation thing as an accounting trick (without actually selling any), I saw it mentioned first just before Orange Man took office. I think it was Hayes's blog - one of my preferred sources for bitcoin relevant macro analysis - but I wouldn't bet my family jewels on that. At any rate, it's not a new idea, as it's been mentioned several times after Biden went to sleep.

Scientists Discover a Fungus That Produces Real Gold — And You Can Grow It at Home

It was more to question how the other user could so boldly proclaim what Bitcoin's purpose was. When it is impossible to be clear about this position. I didn't know about some of those other satoshi posts, but I cherry picked just one precisely because both positions can be defended and bitcoin's purpose is pretty vague and can't be defined by a individual parties for everyone else.

I'm not strongly on any particular side, but this definitely could have been approached quite differently and possibly a better solution could have been provided for the problem that it is intended to solve. The worst part for me is the removal of the config options, why should I as a user not be allowed to decide the limits for myself?

Besides, I don't think this removal will have the intended consequence that the authors believe it will. If I understood correctly, it is supposed to encourage them to use less harmful methods. However, if the other method has a discount on fees then I don't see why they would change anything in the way that they store data? Did I miss something?

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone

is a uart connector a jtag?
.
Assist

No, a UART connector and a JTAG connector are different. UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter) is used for serial communication, while JTAG (Joint Test Action Group) is primarily used for debugging and testing electronic devices.
Relevant Sources

    Using Debugging Interfaces: UART, JTAG, and SWD De...runtimerec.com
    ADALM-UARTJTAG [Analog Devices Wiki]wiki.analog.com

JTAG is not serial, what?
.
Llama 3.3 70B

JTAG is actually a parallel interface, not a serial one. It uses a separate wire for each signal, such as TCK (clock), TMS (mode select), TDI (data in), TDO (data out), and others, to control and access the internal state of a device. This parallel interface allows for faster and more efficient testing and debugging.

usb has a seperate data transmit and recieve doesnt it?
.
Llama 3.3 70B

USB (Universal Serial Bus) has separate wires for data transmission and reception, but it's still considered a serial interface. This is because USB uses a single signal wire for both transmit and receive, but it uses a technique called differential signaling, where the signal is transmitted over two wires (D+ and D-). The difference between the voltages on these two wires represents the signal. Additionally, USB uses a half-duplex mode, where the device can either transmit or receive data at a given time, but not both simultaneously.

guess i'm too dumb to see te differance. i thought parralel has to be a word width
.
Llama 3.3 70B

You're not dumb at all. The terms "serial" and "parallel" can be confusing, especially when it comes to interfaces like USB.

In the context of digital interfaces, "serial" and "parallel" refer to how data is transmitted:

    Serial interfaces transmit data one bit at a time, over a single communication channel. Examples include UART, SPI, and USB.
    Parallel interfaces transmit data multiple bits at a time, over multiple communication channels. Examples include parallel ports, PCI buses, and some types of computer memory interfaces.

The key point is that parallel interfaces typically have a fixed word width, such as 8, 16, or 32 bits, and transmit all the bits of a word simultaneously over separate wires. This allows for faster data transfer rates, but also increases the complexity and cost of the interface.

In contrast, serial interfaces transmit data one bit at a time, but can often achieve high data transfer rates through the use of high-speed clocks and advanced signaling techniques.

So, while USB does have separate wires for transmit and receive, it's still considered a serial interface because it transmits data one bit at a time, rather than transmitting multiple bits simultaneously over separate wires.

so a jtag transfers how many bits simultaniousley?
.
Llama 3.3 70B

A JTAG interface typically transfers data 1 bit at a time, just like a serial interface. However, it has a parallel-like aspect in that it has multiple signals that are transmitted simultaneously:

    TCK (clock): 1 bit
    TMS (mode select): 1 bit
    TDI (data in): 1 bit
    TDO (data out): 1 bit

So, while JTAG is often referred to as a parallel interface, it's more accurate to say that it's a multi-wire serial interface, where multiple signals are transmitted simultaneously, but each signal is still only 1 bit wide.

It's worth noting that some JTAG variants, such as JTAG with a scan chain, can transfer data in parallel across multiple devices, but this is still done 1 bit at a time, with each device in the chain shifting the data in or out on each clock cycle.

if it transfers 1 bit at a time then that by definition must make it a serial connector?
.
Llama 3.3 70B

If a JTAG interface transfers data 1 bit at a time, then it meets the definition of a serial interface. The fact that it has multiple wires for different signals (TCK, TMS, TDI, TDO) doesn't change the fact that it's transferring data serially, one bit at a time.

So, to correct my earlier statement, JTAG is indeed a serial interface, not a parallel interface. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency and helping to clarify the definition!

Bitcoin Mechanic is quite convincing.

Is there a website that tracks this colleration in real time that is not a tradingview script? Accessing X without an account is horrible these days. Got something to look forward to

Added both videos to my "Watch Later" list. Very interesting, and (somewhat) worrying, I must say.

The thing is, Bitcoin is a human creation, and as such, it is subject to human errors and even a complete collapse if something goes terribly wrong. This is a fundamental difference between Bitcoin and naturally-created, naturally-immutable elements, such as precious metals (gold, silver), and this is the reason why I'm skeptical when changes to the Bitcoin code are proposed and implemented. To counteract this inherent disadvantage, Bitcoin has mechanisms in place, like consensus, forking, and decentralization, so that any side effects in code changes can be quickly and effectively mitigated. There have been numerous code updates over the 16+ years of Bitcoin's history, and Bitcoin is still going strong and better than ever, which shows that this system is extremely robust and failure-resistant. Still, Bitcoin Core consists of human beings, and human beings often fuck things up for various reasons.

Having said that, the ability to update the code is a major (if not the major) advantage of Bitcoin, because it allows progress, innovation, and the mitigation of future issues (think Quantum Computing attacks or other advances in cryptography).

Perhaps I should have posted this after watching the videos, but this is my initial, uninformed take on the issue. In 2017 I was totally against the block size increase (heated arguments with jbreher and all). Code disputes, conversations shutting down, potential forks, etc., just worry me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid (I do that often), or it's because I generally tend to favor a conservative ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it") approach to critical code changes. I guess Bitcoin has grown so big, that it simply cannot be allowed to collapse. Will see what the future brings. Only good things, I hope.

Here is a link to a video that lays out something that's happening in the Core GitHub right now, which is a little bit annoying to say the least.

Is it just me or his Peter Todd always rustling up these kinds of problems?

I think Kratters conclusion, which is these things are complicated, but when you start to see conversations being shut down, it's a red flag is pretty on point.

Sadly, this has the potential to turn into a fork. I kind of hate that it's happening right now for sure, and it sort of seems like this is why we can't have nice things.

I also can't believe that I'm seriously considering switching to Knots. Considering the goofy number of nodes that I run, it's going to be a pain in the ass.

Forgive me if this has already been posted or is being discussed.

https://youtu.be/o7kCqwR9x24

On my B-day? Awesome. 120K is all I want, really. Please Satoshi.

Although I do think we are going beyond 100K. If Ognasty is certain of something it's his Bitcoin news.  

Was 200K not promised to us by Plan B?

 Well, there were 91 fucking candidates on the ballot in Poilievre's riding - it was over a yard long.    Some moron's idea (allegedly) of a protest against our "first past the poll" system of elections in Canada.  It doesn't cost the candidates anything - they only need 100 signatures from people who reside within the riding.  My understanding is, they only need submit their name and someone else does everything for them.

What Canada did in the election was to vote for change... a change from extremists like Trudeau, Poilievre, and Singh and back toward a more moderate centrist approach. The leaders of the two extremist parties both just lost their seats.

Carney is not a wokeist like Biden, Trudeau or Singh nor is he a neofascist like Trump or Poilievre. He's an economist and experienced negotiator.

Canada just moved solidly to the right, but not too far.