Thread

🛡️
core vs knots is just another way that you are allowing yourself to be divided and fighting like dogs both sides are fucking you over in real time and telling you that the other side will cause unthinkable horrors

Replies (29)

🛡️
↩ replying to npub1dz7m...r75l
now that there is decent separation of consensus critical code, it is best that it happens the bitcoin core client and derivatives are technically flawed in much dumber but important ways, like still using LevelDB even though it keeps corrupting data over and over and the lack of more clients that focus on more things, like maybe more flexible data analysis, or compression for a smaller chain, etc
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like a cat. If you put cat into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put cat into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, cats can flow or it can crash. Be a cat, my friend.
🛡️
↩ replying to Toxic Bitcoiner
Basically, witness data is only necessary for proving *authorization to spend*. It can be discarded and it is what happens with pre-SegWit clients. The witness merkle root is committed separately of the main merkle root. Inscriptions store data in the witness which can be easily pruned, and also is cheaper (which does not matter, except for the fact that economic incentives will push people to use it). OP_RETURN is committed to by the main block hash. Unlike the witness which can be separately downloaded and if needed ignored from the main block data, the OP_RETURN is part of the main transaction. This means you have to download OP_RETURNs to be able to verify a block and much more important guarantees like: - no double spends - conservation of supply
🛡️
↩ replying to vinney...axkl
the original point was “op_return was easier” for some cases where you needed just a little bit more data, as you did not need 2 txs. it was never cheaper or better compared to inscriptions for mass data storage, and was in fact a major step back on that front now all of this is moot because taproot annex exists which does the best of both worlds and is even more “prunable” as it is guaranteed useless the fact that the limit was increased beyond a few KB feels even after user feedback feels like there is no regard for sensibility, and nuking op_return to 40 bytes like with knots is also pointless as it can’t fit enough data for some use cases all this has done is one of the leading implementations being open arms to data storage which will encourage it, while leaving people with 2 shit choices I also do not understand why some people feel the need to defend use cases they have no involvement in
🛡️
↩ replying to semisol
there is 1 problem with inscriptions which is that it created a ton of dust outputs, but this is more of a problem with the fact ordinals encouraging 1 UTXO per inscribed “sat” as any other way was hard to manipulate by a wallet app and that consolidating the 2nd tx output was not economical in terms of fees at high feerates, when your intention was to store data, compared to just leaving it be and forgetting about it
🛡️
if it didn't take me forever to write this on my phone keyboard we mighta jinxed eachother
vinney...axkl's avatar vinney...axkl
Depressingly classic duopoly shit. duopolies present a false dichotomy and generate polarization rage and suck up all the attention. of course there are always more than two options (an infinite number!), and the more the two try to tell you, "not only are there NOT more than two - but there's not even two! i'm the only solution!" the more the "lesser evil" fallacy shows itself. yes, schelling points are often useful - but they can easily mutate into a malicious antipattern when you mistake the "party" for the goal itself. you see this in political parties, you see it in culture wars and moral panics, you see it in Bitcoin right now. i'm not advocating for **A** Third Way in any of the above, but suggesting that you notice - in yourself - when your original abstract goals and ideals get quietly replaced with 'party-as-solution', whatever those goals may be; ethical governance, prosperity, social justice, individual freedom, neutral permisnionless electronic global money... i don't believe it is possible to "temporarily use a party to get towards your goal and then ditch it later" because they are darwinian organisms that are empowered exponentially by our energy. it only takes a few small injections of energy and attention to nearly permanently entrench the rot as an apex predator. (and you're the prey, obvs, silly) the only way to win is to not play > "Certainly the price for refusing [to play] is high, but that there is a price at all points to the fact that oppressors themselves acknowledge that even the weakest of their subjects must agree to be oppressed. If the subjects were unresisting puppets or automatons, no threat would be necessary, and no price would be paid thus" James Carse; _Finite and Infinite Games_ coordination problems coordination problems coordination problems coordination problems coordination problems
View quoted note →
False dichotomy, I just don't want to see garbage on the blockchain, and knots is the only thing that allows me to do my minuscule part in both filtering as much garbage as possible and in signaling to the rest of the network that I am against it. But I don't care for the rest of the politics behind the schism.