Thread

MY CONCERN ISNโ€™T REALLY OCEAN. THIS IS NOT A SURPRISING MOVE BY LUKE BASED ON HIS HISTORY AND OCEAN DOES NOT HAVE MUCH HASH. THE CONCERN IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. YOU CAN BET THAT THE LARGE MINING POOLS ARE HAVING CENSORSHIP CONVERSATIONS RIGHT NOW BASED ON THIS. MEANWHILE A BUNCH OF YOU ARE HITTING ME WITH SEMANTICS. DO BETTER.

Replies (40)

The real question is: when the government forces companies like RIOT and MARA to censor transactions, will they comply or move their hashrate to a different jurisdiction? How will market participants respond to their decision. And how long before capital controls become โ€œthose machines donโ€™t leave our bordersโ€ controls? Welcome to the future motherfuckers
Lol. Hashrate will move, regardless. Their may be pain during transition but the net result will be even more decentralized mining as the non-โ€œpublicโ€ miners move to other locations/pools with better conditions. Either the economics of bitcoin work, or they donโ€™t. They are based on allowing the free market to do its thing. I donโ€™t believe this can be stopped. If authorites squash/capture one market, two free ones will pop up to replace it due to incentives alone. Nah, if there is any brains at all with the authorities, best to keep a quiet eye on it as-is less they force it adapt and decentralize even further. China made a big mistake. I suspect the IS may learn from that.
Perhaps because I say what I think rather than conforming to whatever the current popular narrative is; I've been cancelled countless times. Also, I think there's plenty of room for non-Bitcoin crypto networks that offer different utility. I explore many technologies and I don't apologize for it. People tend to form a mental model of me based upon my posts they've seen, then they get upset when I do something that breaks their model. IDK about "good" vs "bad" guy because it's subjective. I consider myself good because I've educated many people and also helped many folks secure their funds. I don't defraud folks - the services I provide are quite transparent, even if some folks disagree with them.
I get your point. But every tyranny, every empire before them has fallen. I see no reason to believe this one is different. You canโ€™t put the genie back in the bottle. The idea is now out there. This is why you donโ€™t need to hope in bitcoin, you can *know*. Youโ€™re only hope is we get it right the first time, for everyoneโ€™s sake. But if we donโ€™t, then we will try again. And again. And again. Entire races have seen generations come and go in pure slavery, and yet we keep gaining ground. Mankindโ€™s instinct and fate is to wrestle with and balance freedom and tyranny.
You see itโ€™s not a coinjoin ban. Because op_return is not used in coinjoin tx but rather in tx0(transaction zero), which is not a coinjoin txn! Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners. then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path. Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection. The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.
ELI 5. Serious question: What is the problem if a mining pool does not want to process a transaction? Isnt this going to be picked by other miners who are willing to mine, use their hash and receive the reward? Isnt this the same as a restaurant owner saying that he does not want to do business with a certain type of customer as this will hurt his business?
The problem of transaction censorship in Bitcoin mining pools is important because there is a large imbalance between the cost of censorship and the cost of avoiding censorship. For example, if transactions to a certain address (address A) are censored by some mining pools, the owner of this address will have to spend additional time and money to bypass the censorship. A transaction that would have been processed in 10 minutes without censorship might take 20 minutes, or they might have to find a mining pool that doesn't censor and pay extra. If the owner of address A made a costly transaction and moved the balance to another address (address B), the censor could simply add address B to the censor list to continue the censorship. However, if the owner wishes to transact again, they will have to spend the same amount of money they spent to make the transaction at address A again. In such a situation, can a user who is being censored by a mining pool be considered a legitimate user of Bitcoin? Can the Bitcoin network be considered neutral? Why should the owners of addresses A and B incur additional costs? Is the Bitcoin network providing a rationale to justify this situation? There is one cheapest way for the owners of addresses A and B to use Bitcoin normally. It's to give in to the censors. But is this the path Bitcoin wants to take? Therefore, I believe that censorship of transactions by mining pools undermines Bitcoin's censorship resistance and neutrality. The question of spam filtering versus censorship is not really important here. What matters is that if you can filter spam, you can also censor transactions. #Bitcoin
10๋ถ„/20๋ถ„ ์˜ˆ์‹œ๋Š” ํ•ด๋‹น ํ’€์˜ ํ•ด์‹œ๋ ˆ์ดํŠธ๋„ค ๋”ฐ๋ผ ๋‹ฌ๋ผ์งˆ ๊ฒƒ ๊ฐ™์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋˜ ๋“ค์–ด์ฃผ์‹  ์ƒํ™ฉ์€ ์ตœ๊ทผ F2Pool์ด OFAC ์ œ์žฌ ๋ฆฌ์ŠคํŠธ๋ฅผ ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง/๊ฒ€์—ดํ–ˆ๊ณ  ๊ทธ๊ฒƒ์ด ๋ฐœ๊ฒฌ๋˜์–ด ๊ฒฐ๊ตญ ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง/๊ฒ€์—ด์„ ๋ฉˆ์ถ˜ ์‚ฌ๋ก€์™€ ๋”ฑ ๋“ค์–ด๋งž๋Š” ๊ฒƒ ๊ฐ™์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฐ๋ฐ ์ „์ฒด์ ์œผ๋กœ๋Š” ๋™์˜ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์–ด๋ ต์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์†์„ฑ์€ ์‹œ์ž‘๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์žˆ๋˜ ์†์„ฑ์ด๊ณ  ํ”ผํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์—†๋‹ค๊ณ  ์ƒ๊ฐํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ ์˜ฌ๋ฐ”๋ฅธ ํŒ๋‹จ์„ ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋„๋ก ๋ฌด์—‡์ด ์˜ณ์€์ง€ ๋ฌด์—‡์ด ๊ทธ๋ฅธ์ง€ ํŒ๋‹จํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ๋Šฅ๋ ฅ์„ ๊ธฐ๋ฅด๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ๊ฒƒ ๊ฐ™์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋…ธ๋“œ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ์ ๊ทน์ ์œผ๋กœ ํ–‰๋™ํ•œ๋‹ค๋ฉด ๋” ์ข‹์„ ๊ฒƒ ๊ฐ™์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
1/ Censorship resistance is directly dependent on the number of synched nodes that track and validate their own txs 2/ Blockchain bloat is the main hurdle to growing synched nodes from 10,000s PCs to 1,000,000,000s phones ! Every bit/tx counts, therefore it is the opposite: the good actors are the most conservative on tx size limits Miner "Censorship" is trivially overcome with high fees
I see what you mean. On the other hand, why should Bitcoin Core have a monopoly on the doctrine? I am glad that there are other bitcoin clients with different policies. What has to be clarified is whether Ocean is specifically targeting these coinjoin transactions or just happens to have a lower OP_RETURN limit.
We have to hit you with semantics because shitcoiners have been fooling people with limited technical knowledge into complacency by using misleading semantics. Study up on mempool policies and why they have been in place since day 1 before you throw around loaded terminology like 'censorship'.