But current devs know better, right?
Huh? Current devs are trying to limit the damage by getting spam to move away from UTXO bloating methods.
No they are not, they are trying to anticipate future usecases and behaviour from bad actors, which essentially boils down to negotiation with spammers (terrorists).
If you're right and filters are the only thing keeping Bitcoin from being destroyed by spammers then we are fucked anyway. As distasteful as spam is, the smooth functioning of the network and keeping the cost of running a node down is a higher priority imo. The fee market will determine what the best use of blockspace is.
From what I understand it's the opposite
There are a lot of baseless accusations being thrown around.
The only thing that keeps Bitcoin from being destroyed are node runers, and filters are just part of the toolkit.
Are you going to sell all your Bitcoin if the change gets merged?
No, but I get the feeling a lot more people will run to Knots than right now. If Core continues to fuck around, they will find out.
spam exists because they intentionally didnt update the filters 2 years ago.
they created to problem themselves.
2 years ago after taproot
That's just one type of spam, it's always been possible to record data in different ways and some of those are more damaging to the network than others.
Yes the p2tr method blew up and drove fees higher for awhile, but the hype has died because it holds very little value. Removing op_return filters might cause another surge, but it will die too because storing jpegs on the Blockchain is a stupid use case. It's still consensus valid though, and I want my node to be aligned with consensus even if I find how other people use it distasteful. That's just the nature of a permissionless network, people will use it in ways you don't like.
Now if anyone wants to talk about changing consensus to prevent these uses, then I would be willing to listen and even fight for it, but no one seems to want to do that right now. This is the consensus we are stuck with for better or worse. People wil find ways to achieve their goals of data storage no matter what the nodes try to filter, so we might as well channel it into the least damaging method.
There may even be some data storage use cases that enhance scaling and increase the value of the monetary use case of Bitcoin, but even if not the monetary use case of Bitcoin is by far the most valuable and will outcompete spam in the long run. I just don't think there's anything to be afraid of from the spammers. Let the fee markets decide what is the best use of blockspace. Trying to get nodes to collectively control the blockchain is some statist-type regulatory bullshit that gets in the way of the free market.
im against changing consensus, thats politician solution. "just add another law". thats top down decision making.
you dont wanna become a consensus change addict.
bitcoin has to be as unchanging as possible. like gravity, yes gravity suck sometimes but its a constant and we can build on top of that.
spam issue is a community level issue, and should be decided by the free market of node runners. just like i can decide what i can share with people in a free world, i can also decide what to share with other bitcoin nodes.
we dont need to change the constitution of bitcoin (consensus).
maybe today 42 byte is decided to be fine, maybe tomorrow it will be 32 or 64. these are community level decisions.
maybe one dont wanna relay tokens, maybe one does. you have to find someone who does.
you cant keep touching the consensus, it doesnt end well. whole point of bitcoin is stopping top down changes done by entities to "fix the economy". so no we shouldnt touch consensus. im fully against it.
this should be solved in the community level.
filters has been part of bitcoin from the early days. and spam was a real concern from the early days as well. everything from the legacy 1MB block size to block per 10 min decision made while also keeping spam in mind, and keep the blockchain easy to download by small devices.
and L2+ solutions should be as light as possible on chain as well. we dont want one L2+ solution to rule them all and take a huge block space. we want multiple different small L2+ solutions focusing different aspects.
no swish army knife EVM. limitations on bitcoin makes things built on it smart. no lazy slap EVM everywhere.
if a L2 solution requires less decentralized bitcoin for sake of L2 security, it shouldnt exist.
core of the issue is the core. bitcoin/bitcoin should have been archived a long time ago. many people at core, not because they wanna write a node software for users of bitcoin, no. they want to be a bitcoin dev. thats a problem, it effects their perspective and the way they see things..
a parliament voting and deciding what should happen to bitcoin by saying "ACK" or "NACK", is not decentralization, or free market of alternatives.
its top down management by a collective. something happens or doesnt happen. there is no other experiments happening in parallel in the free market of node software.
We Should Archive Core.
then we can have many new different node implementations and forks trying to take its place.
you have to change your thinking a bit. bitcoin doesnt run on aether, and it shouldnt be managed by one collective/parliament.
bitcoin IS the people who use it and run a node. so primary goal of a node software market should be serving to these users, not trying to "shape bitcoin".
maybe a node app has support for mempool management plugins, so you dont have to wait for an update for better filters, you can have a whole free market of filters on a plugin store, or filter packs.
maybe one has better UI and UX. maybe other one has better compression. maybe other one is experimenting on a protocol making nodes send bulk data to each other with gzip to save bandwidth.
maybe one has built-in tor support, so you dont have to separately set it up. maybe one has built-in support for electrum endpoints and indexing while pruning. maybe other one has plugin support for indexing.
maybe one has a more mobile oriented app.
all different things being experimented on in parallel by multiple people.
some are solo, some are 2 friends, some are an organization.
no parliament saying "ACK" or "NACK", just everything tested in parallel in the market.
free market of node implementations. all selected by the market.
total protocol ossification.
is core humble enough to archive the repo?
or just like the control?
Love this take π«‘
View quoted note β
