Thread

Replies (55)

The argument fails where it implies legal liability for other people's actions. I have not looked at 99% of the blocks in the chain. No idea what is in them. Don't care. Not liable for their contents Its like arguing that I am an accessory to money laundering bc one block contains money laundering transactions
This soft fork orphans any new csam-containing block that gets mined by having miners hash on the previous "clean" block. This effectively bypasses the csam block by creating a longer chain of clean blocks and leaving the csam block (as well as the miners revenue) orphaned and forever discarded by node consensus. This will signal to miners that allowing csam-containing transactions in their mempool will corrupt their changes of having other miners on the network accept and mine on their block. View quoted note β†’
πŸ›‘οΈ
The irony there :D So we have to immediately cleanse the blockchain of illegal data because if we do it much later, we show how we can remove illegal data ... slowly ... I suppose? image The emergency fork part is total madness. It **will** get tested given how much money there is at stake. Short Bitcoin -> mine CSAM -> profit! But I guess it will get tested in a more nefarious way: As we cannot "watch CSAM" (and talk about it) without incriminating ourselves, this also works: Short Bitcoin -> claim CSAM was mined -> profit! They are talking about immediate re-orgs. Total chaos because of maybe a judge sharing Luke's view about bytes on the blockchain.
πŸ›‘οΈ
I run knots, but I am not not ready to put any support behind this BIP. I don't want non-monetary data on Bitcoin. More research is needed on my end, but I think this could be a mistake and it doesn't sound great at first glance. Move fast, make mistakes... don't make a similar mistake as Core!
↩ replying to Akashi Hyogo
This content is in reaction to a change he opposed to begin with. If change is not desired, and said change happens anyway, suddenly wanting to reverse or mitigate perceived negatice effects of this change is not hypocritical.
↩ replying to gsovereignty
Its not my proposal. And while I do support the majority of it in theory, code has not been written yet, or at least been made available, so it is impossible for me to even say I support this bip fully. You're also right. They are very different. The futher off course a system strays, the more dramatic of an adjustment is necessary to correct it, and "oversteering" concerns may be prudent, but my point still stands.
Feels like we are being forked in another way. As in the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," the emotional framing makes it difficult to answer. Feels like some framing needs to be rejected. Like it's a logical fallacy of the excluded middle. Even more so when in this case where dear Matthew is adding urgency to the decision. Not sure if his answer is right or wrong yet but the urgent pressing is reminiscent of a phishing campaign, trying to get suckers with urgent messaging. The CSAM alarm seems similar to Apple's justification for accessing icloud photos. Nobody in their right mind wants to host CSAM. But the answer in the BIP (if i understand correctly) of preemptively adding reorgs is not only centralizing but it reminds me of Wasabi's preemptive boot licking cuckery. No sane person wants CSAM but every sane person should want permissionless decentralized money that actually settles with finality. May the Lord grant us wisdom about this and raise up clear thinkers and leaders among us to help us know the right way forward. Grace be with is.
πŸ›‘οΈ
↩ replying to Therefore Go
this is not the first time luke has attacked a blockchain. in 2012 he used eligius pool to perform a 51% attack on coiledcoin. he took unilateral action and the miners who used his pool were not aware of what was going on. luke has displayed a pattern of using resources that don't really belong to him to block or damage things he does not like, and not being transparent about it during or after. if you run his node software or signal his BIPs, don't be surprised what he tries to sneak into it to serve his own destructive and autocratic agendas. luke is a bad actor.
Core 30 is a major controversial change to btc, which in itself is cause for alarm. A major change requires sound reasoning on a major level. I have yet to see any arguments for this change that do not come from either shitcoiner scammers/ideological purists/autistic technocrats/nepotistically appointed "devs" with limited experience and undisclosed affinities. None of these arguments are sound nor make any real sense; the gist of them all seems to variations on "calm down and trust me bro", or " btc is magical and immune to harm because it is magical and immune to harm", which just isn't enough in light of what's at stake here. Add to this the fact that core 30 provides clear benefits for interests that are actively opposed to bitcoin's main purpose: to be sound money and a viable alternative to the broken fiat system. This change only benefits spammers looking for fiat gains, perverts looking for a way to share their perversions, and malicious actors like banks and state agencies looking to sabotage the only real challenge to their crumbling power structure. The rest of us have no need for it. On the contrary; using money as data storage makes it less viable as money, which means this change would be detrimental even if it only led to more "harmless" spam. These facts combined should be enough to make you pause and consider whether the concerns that Matt and other are raising are just hyperbole and scare tactics, or whether there is a real threat here. Just follow the money for fuck's sake.
πŸ›‘οΈ
Hi Matt. 2 warnings about bip-444: In the case of an offensive block, what happens to all legal txs within that same block? it'd be terrible to reverse good txs. Images/videos/files shouldn't be allowed at all, better than to monitor for the most unpleasant things, right? the worst experience for anyone monitoring it.
πŸ›‘οΈ
I agree with everything that Matt says in this video, with one slight caveat. The way to get the bitcoin that you want is to vote with your money. That is your power. If the BTC444 fork starts with just 5% of the mining network, then it can start to get traction. The thing that will make the miners switch, is if the price of the new fork is higher than its relative hash power. For example, if the price of BTC444 is 10% of the old btc price and it has only 5% of the hash, then it is twice as profitable for the miners to mine BTC444 rather than the old one. Miners are economically incentivesed actors, they will produce what people will pay for. After the fork everyone will have both versions of bitcoin in their wallet. You can sit tight and play it safe, that way you will certainly end up with the winning bitcoin either way. Alternatively, you can become an active part of shaping the future of bitcion by selling some of your spam chain bitcion for some clean chain bitcoin. It will be quite cheap at first. Pay for the bitcoin that want to own and miners will produce what you pay for. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. The core devs are attempting a coup, but we have the real power. If you think about how almost all of the OG bitcoin hodlers really don't like ordinals, then you can probably have a good guess as to who is going to win! Peter Todd hates bitcoin and he wants to tear it all down. He made a film in which he pretended to be satoshi. He persistently proposes that we extend bitcoin beyond the 21m limit. He is bullying the bitcoin core devs into expanding OP_RETURN. I have been to bitdevs meetings and I've seen it happen. The only thing that we can do with 100KB that we can't do with 80 bytes is put more non financial data on the blockchain. The CSAM threat is real. That is what central bankers want, it is what governments want, it is what shitcoin projects want and it is what Peter Todd wants. They want to see bitcion fall. Thank you @Matthew Kratter for highlighting this topic for us. View quoted note β†’