Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 21 results by uint512_t
everything Core will do now is going to counterproductive and PR, if you run something like a corporation it becomes a corporation.... even boomber OGs can't protect them from man-hours wasted on BS because the well has been poisoned enough by narratives of neo-Keynesians about muh "security budget", same ppl who chickened out too early when ghash reached 50% hashpower and now they sensationalize some new worries.
You can pretent to be a Libertarian/ancap by wearing a tshirt that says "don't tread on me", but you are not one without understanding the concept of property rights and your actions. Keep drinking from the poisoned well and keep wasting time on non-sense.
You can pretent to be a Libertarian/ancap by wearing a tshirt that says "don't tread on me", but you are not one without understanding the concept of property rights and your actions. Keep drinking from the poisoned well and keep wasting time on non-sense.
oh yea of course, he is allowed to do anything ... just stating the intents and the kinds of people behind these things, you make your own conclusion and i've made my own
spamtoshi made $2400 to first create Libre Relay: https://x.com/lightcoin/status/1733257392668766494
By a guy from Alpen Labs who want to run stablecoins and shitcoins on Bitcoin. Pathetic.
By a guy from Alpen Labs who want to run stablecoins and shitcoins on Bitcoin. Pathetic.
speaking of viacoin devil, devil is here 
⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
Some interesting stats on filters:
https://x.com/jimmysong/status/1923165254042664980
https://x.com/jimmysong/status/1923203947507880342
Libre relay only does following afaik:
1. Removes the OP_Return limits.
2. Connects to an additional four Libre Relay nodes, to ensure transactions propagate.
3. Implements pure replace-by-fee-rate (RBFR) and full-rbf, to solve Rule #3 transaction pinning.
It's a crap software run by shitcoiners and sandwich heads and mara slipstream is defacing and DoSing by filling entire blocks of spam. Performance art, lmao. People have no spine.
https://x.com/jimmysong/status/1923165254042664980
https://x.com/jimmysong/status/1923203947507880342
Libre relay only does following afaik:
1. Removes the OP_Return limits.
2. Connects to an additional four Libre Relay nodes, to ensure transactions propagate.
3. Implements pure replace-by-fee-rate (RBFR) and full-rbf, to solve Rule #3 transaction pinning.
It's a crap software run by shitcoiners and sandwich heads and mara slipstream is defacing and DoSing by filling entire blocks of spam. Performance art, lmao. People have no spine.
Quote
but never any ideas on how to defend a computer
I already told you how: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/FpSWUxItXQsOf course, I appreciate those who have worked or are working on IBD improvements. I don't understand what SwiftSync is, I would have to spend decent amount of time to evaluate and not even sure if I can. During past spam attack, I did evaluate some of the claims like "assumeutxo will fix it, utreexo will fix it, ctv will fix it, this will fix it, that will fix it"...., those in my opinion are trade-offs and not solutions but I'm glad people like yourself are trying to think through and help us. Also, what is designed on paper may not materialize just like we don't have SPV as envisioned in the whitepaper. I know you've a lot more to say on that too but let me cut to the chase.
Only point of me being here is as the title of this thread suggests. In re: to what's my solution, idk - you will give me 100 reasons what i'm doing is wrong and/or accuse me of affiliation with some company but yea I run Knots and I mine with Knots, datacarrier=0. Of course, i'm a very small miner and haven't found any blocks yet but I'm doing what seems right to me at this point.
⭐ Merited by stwenhao (1)
You guys have 100 different ways/ideas and mental gymnastics to break into someone's computer but never any ideas on how to defend a computer. It shows.
⭐ Merited by stwenhao (1)
If the (armed) intruders are knocking on your door, wouldn't you beg them to use method 1 or 3, so at least you can use your kitchen in peace? That's what the devs would be doing if they remove the OP_RETURN limit.
[/quote]
I would use my arms to defend myself
[/quote]
I would use my arms to defend myself
~
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
This may be slightly off-topic and going back to a different time period here, but I am curious if Satoshi ever elaborated (privately or publicly) on the "There are other things we can do if necessary" comment here?
I'm sure he didn't say we would bend knee to bad actors like Marathon and change the protocol according their demands because this or that will break because muh "computer science". Shameless people if had any courage they wouldn't be taking donations from Marathon for Bitcoin development.
Sad to see how things have devolved, just came here to say that may be I'm wrong because I don't understand the technicality of the situation as clearly as wiser people do. But from the school of thought I'm coming from is also from the angle of what's mentioned in the summary/moral section of the famous computer science paper "reflections on trusting trust" i.e. breaking into computers or spamming protocols is as bad as breaking into other people's houses. Peaceful people respect other people's property rights and only engage in voluntary exchanges, unless we don't want to see a world trending towards that we can bring 1,000 "technical" reasons about the need for normalizing this behavior. I choose Bitcoin because I want to see that world, not because I want to see the protcol being abused and becoming centralized.
Without any ego, I may be at best can admit that I hope i'm wrong and the technical people are right and I will watch and learn with patience. Good luck.
Without any ego, I may be at best can admit that I hope i'm wrong and the technical people are right and I will watch and learn with patience. Good luck.
It's a lot to read and respond, but I will say this that I don't think i'm in favor of relaxing op_return limit. But I understand there's lot of technical nuance to this, I will let everyone make up their own mind and what has to happen will happen. For now, I'm sticking with what I already said. FWIW, my nodes as well as mining is with datacarrier=0, so of course I've a strong opinion and which is please don't spam and also atleast I am not a user of smart contract projects that are coming to Bitcoin. They upset me.
and thank you for engaging with me
⭐ Merited by gmaxwell (5)
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 
So you don't think it's appropriate for you to disclose your potential conflicts of interest?- Above certain size (~150bytes) [1], it is claimed it's cheaper to abuse witness exploit so not sure why you're so sure that ppl with malicious intent to embed large jpegs/data will switch to using OP_RETURN.
- When the actual UTXO bloat exploded like crazy during inscription attack, most Core devs were congratulating their ex coworker from Chaincode (Casey) on exploiting the witness vulnerability. He even asked jpeggers to donate some money to Core dev [2]. No attempt to stop him either socially OR technically. Most of them incl. Dr Wuille ridiculed actual users that they can run their node with blocksonly [3][4][5], they still say that. Now you've claims that they're anticipating some usage in more harmful ways(which hasn't happened btw) so they are correct in pro-actively proposing relaxing op_return limits. May be try to comprehend the frustruation of real users if you actually care about this particular issue in Bitcoin unless you think all of the technical stuff as told by the "experts" is something everyone needs to subscribe to?
- I'm not so sure about your claim of OOB txs atleast for non-std txs. For inscriptions may be but my very first point clearly shows you that relaxing op_return limits doesn't make it cheaper for those inscription txs so they are not going to move there.
For stats on non-std txs, it is claimed that there's only 30 non-std OP_RETURN txs out of 7 million txs this year. [6]
- "It was a limit that made sense at a different time in a different world", explain how are you quantifying that now the system is mature enough and people got educated. I would say it's exactly the opposite of your claim, inscription attack bloated chainstate faster than ever before. How can you claim people are educated, 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 if there's too much bloat without understanding the adoption hurdle/trust involved in such solutions. May be that can increase, but those are then pure speculations.
- I respectfully agree that you've way more technical expertise than most ppl in this space and may be you're right about some of your concerns(block propagation etc.) even though counter arguments have been also made by people who are not just theoreticians but practically running businesses. I don't think devs living in a totally theoretical world can easily convince people/users actually running things even with their advanced math and intellectual-papers vs real evidence and experiences.
May be we need to look at the bigger picture, i.e. finding path of least resistance and making sure there's more clarity in communication between technical and non-technical users. If the issue is that ALL of the Core devs are right and ALL of the users on the other side are wrong, there still needs to be a way to bring them closer on a point that's both technically and socially sound, specially for the people on both sides who atleast agree that Bitcoin turning into Etherium is no good. Right now, that's not the case PRs are for devs, dev mailing list is for devs so moderate away the concerned users hard is not a great look at all (just saying as a user).
Not a fan of long rants, but a long rant in response to long rants
Ref:
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/122321/when-is-op-return-cheaper-than-op-false-op-if
[2] https://x.com/glozow/status/1757597995632111825
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112
[4] https://github.com/darosior/ordisrespectooor
[5] https://x.com/sr_gi/status/1918320889860403304
[6] https://x.com/oomahq/status/1917153249565565344
- When the actual UTXO bloat exploded like crazy during inscription attack, most Core devs were congratulating their ex coworker from Chaincode (Casey) on exploiting the witness vulnerability. He even asked jpeggers to donate some money to Core dev [2]. No attempt to stop him either socially OR technically. Most of them incl. Dr Wuille ridiculed actual users that they can run their node with blocksonly [3][4][5], they still say that. Now you've claims that they're anticipating some usage in more harmful ways(which hasn't happened btw) so they are correct in pro-actively proposing relaxing op_return limits. May be try to comprehend the frustruation of real users if you actually care about this particular issue in Bitcoin unless you think all of the technical stuff as told by the "experts" is something everyone needs to subscribe to?
- I'm not so sure about your claim of OOB txs atleast for non-std txs. For inscriptions may be but my very first point clearly shows you that relaxing op_return limits doesn't make it cheaper for those inscription txs so they are not going to move there.
For stats on non-std txs, it is claimed that there's only 30 non-std OP_RETURN txs out of 7 million txs this year. [6]
- "It was a limit that made sense at a different time in a different world", explain how are you quantifying that now the system is mature enough and people got educated. I would say it's exactly the opposite of your claim, inscription attack bloated chainstate faster than ever before. How can you claim people are educated, 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 if there's too much bloat without understanding the adoption hurdle/trust involved in such solutions. May be that can increase, but those are then pure speculations.
- I respectfully agree that you've way more technical expertise than most ppl in this space and may be you're right about some of your concerns(block propagation etc.) even though counter arguments have been also made by people who are not just theoreticians but practically running businesses. I don't think devs living in a totally theoretical world can easily convince people/users actually running things even with their advanced math and intellectual-papers vs real evidence and experiences.
May be we need to look at the bigger picture, i.e. finding path of least resistance and making sure there's more clarity in communication between technical and non-technical users. If the issue is that ALL of the Core devs are right and ALL of the users on the other side are wrong, there still needs to be a way to bring them closer on a point that's both technically and socially sound, specially for the people on both sides who atleast agree that Bitcoin turning into Etherium is no good. Right now, that's not the case PRs are for devs, dev mailing list is for devs so moderate away the concerned users hard is not a great look at all (just saying as a user).
Not a fan of long rants, but a long rant in response to long rants
Ref:
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/122321/when-is-op-return-cheaper-than-op-false-op-if
[2] https://x.com/glozow/status/1757597995632111825
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112
[4] https://github.com/darosior/ordisrespectooor
[5] https://x.com/sr_gi/status/1918320889860403304
[6] https://x.com/oomahq/status/1917153249565565344
In fact things like this are the reasons why I've argued for the benefits of having a strong alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol to be used instead of core...
There are fair amount of alternative Bitcoin full node software, but for better or worse Bitcoin Core is still very popular. I've tried few alternative in past, but still prefer Bitcoin Core.
Bitcoin should stay lean. If more data is needed, Layer 2's can batch it and use OP_RETURN more efficiently.
Bitcoin L2 isn't that popular though, with varied degree of trust/centralization[1] and even falsely pretending as Bitcoin L2/sidechain[2].
[1] https://www.bitcoinlayers.org/
[2] https://www.lxresearch.co/starting-to-define-layers-a-year-later/
Looks like Bitcoin Knots may be a good way to protest against this. It has Bitcoin Core functionalities and you are actively voting against this PR by running a node. We should do that but also try to stop this on Bitcoin Core itself from being merged. Bitcoin is not some experimental blockchain to host jpegs. It's clear to me now that the whole argument for this PR is, "the blocks are empty so we must come up with ideas to fill the blocks". This is just linear thinking. The demand for using BTC for it's real use case, which is to move and store money, will be an S curve, and when it happens, you don't want the blockchain cluttered with jpeg spam. This is a huge mistake and anyone involved will have their name next to this when it becomes evident.
Good videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsiDAhq4d4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kCqwR9x24
Bitcoin Knots is great, I've been running it for lightning node on Umbrel and also a standalone for onchain, both with datacarrier=0 since the Oridnal spam attack. Core should also fix ord injection vulnerability instead of removing OP_RETURN limits thinking that spammers will start using that instead. Providing witness discounts, making op_return standard, making it 40 bytes, then 80 bytes and now removing all limits is the real cat & mouse game they've been playing.
The demand for using BTC for it's real use case, which is to move and store money, will be an S curve, and when it happens, you don't want the blockchain cluttered with jpeg spam.
The demand for blockspace is expressed exclusively through the fees paid per byte. If jpeg encoding transactions pay more fees, then profit driven miners will include them and they will clutter the blockchain. You can only slow them down slightly by making them jump through hoops like sending them directly to willing miners.ok tromp, we're well aware of your adventures and failures with grin... keep enlightening everyone with your wisdom of how to fail
That should be the point of Bitcoin Core, remain the Core, stick to the basics, and do not add any complexity in the name of innovation.
By that metric, that's what the PR does. It removes more complex code than it adds.This is a blatant lie, standardness rules aren't that much of a complex code, the code is already there and doesn't require much maintenance. This is typical gaslighting by devs who add endless features that no one uses. The devs write code without users and user feedback for the most part. It's a big academic science project for lot of them in reality.
I don't understand why everyone is flaming us for someone who doesn't frequently contribute to Core opening a PR advocating for a change they'd like to see. Just because there is a PR doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that will be merged.
"Flaming us"? Mods are out of control, they have literally tagged a lot of the rejection comments with "abuse", "duplicate", "off-topic" tags and now they have locked the PR to only a few devs. Sister, grow a pair of balls and read the room.
Re: What does gmaxwell think of OP_CAT and "Great script restoration" in 2024?
Sure, that's what the attempt is, since he is a mod - I expect him to reply. But hey if someone knows, welcome to chime in, whether that turns out to be a truth or lie is a separate matter.