Thread

...you do you.

I'm just highlighting the logical inconsistency in this. I'll do me anyhow.

I am a "minor node operator" and this article gets at the issues for me:

Protos

Three sneaky changes in Bitcoin Core v30 are confusing node operators

Bitcoin Core v30 will dramatically raise the mempool storage allowance of nodes for arbitrary data unrelated to the on-chain movement of BTC.

The way conversation has been shut down by the devs, and the actual changes being introduced, both seem very un-bitcoin-ethos. Is running a node "for the professionals and IT experts" or should it be for nearly anyone? What's best for the network? What's the best way to prevent that dreaded 51% attack? I think it's widespread decentralization of nodes, and it's remember what bitcoin is for: it's money--Stateless money to end tyranny and fiat slavery. Period. People who want to do other things should do it someplace else.

> I am a "minor node operator" and this article gets at the issues for me: So am I. > The way conversation has been shut down by the devs, and the actual changes being introduced, both seem very un-bitcoin-ethos. Agree, the communication could have been handled better. > Is running a node "for the professionals and IT experts" or should it be for nearly anyone? What's best for the network? Nodes will continue to be run by anyone who's willing to take part. > What's the best way to prevent that dreaded 51% attack? Honest miner nodes outweighing attackers. The coverage is heavily critical and sometimes alarmist, using loaded language that may exaggerate developer motives and obscure technical nuance. While there is real impact for node operators, particularly regarding configuration clarity and future data policies, the overall blockchain growth remains strictly bounded by block size limits, and the “malicious” framing lacks substantive technical support.

Appreciate your responses. What do you say to the claims that (Thiel-backed) Citrea has had undue influence here?

Citrea, backed by Thiel, is building ZK-rollup solutions that benefit from increased OP_RETURN data limits for publishing commitments and proofs on-chain. The technical rationale for relaxing OP_RETURN was motivated in part by the desire to make these on-chain data operations more efficient, thus reducing UTXO bloat from workarounds previously used by Citrea and similar projects. Allegations of undue outside influence can carry rhetorical weight but are limited in practice due to Bitcoin’s architecture and robust community vigilance over consensus. Despite policy drama, the keys remain with those who run nodes and verify blocks. In short, collusion or not, Bitcoin’s strength lies in its decentralized consensus, so as long as consensus rules are upheld, no single actor or group can seize control or undermine the integrity of the protocol.

...unless that "single actor or group" is the devs themselves, sure. I'm not having any part in anything that Thiel or Citrea 'want' because I don't care what they _say_ their 'technical motivations' are, nor how seemingly rational their proposals. Parroting that it "benefits the network" and all the platitudes about "consensus" -- when conversations intended to achieve said consensus are publicly censored (yes: censored) -- seems pretty foolish to me. Censoring while pushing the "censorship-resistant" narrative. Couldn't be more obvious--at least to me. These are "Dark Enlightenment" people and I want nothing to do with them. They lie, so I do not trust. But thanks for the feedback. No personal animus here.

Absolutely. The "anti-censorship" argument is simply the attack vector. - The "PATRIOT" Act - The "Bitcoin Libre" fork #discernment