Thread

Same for Chaincode Labs.

preventing retarded transactions is fine. Bitcoin will do the most good for the world if its as close to money as possible. Simple common sense.... its like how you need to prevent men from entering the women's bathroom even though they dress as women.

Bitcoin in this example is the innate sex somebody is born with, nobody has control over that. Your position of censorship is the trans.

no I am just pointing out that discrimination of certain things is necessary because to not discriminate is retarded.

Core devs, including her, has deliberately allowed inscriptions spam. They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam". That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners. Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.

GitHub

datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying by luke-jr · Pull Request #28408 · bitcoin/bitcoin

Updates -datacarriersize to be effective with newer datacarrying styles.

GitHub

Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin

The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...

A default setting was the entire business model of Mozilla Firefox.

Shouldn't you be blaming the miners for including the txns you don't like? Or, shouldn't you be providing an actual solution that prevents txns you don't like from being possible inside of bitcoin blocks? Arguing policy is pointless, just make the config you like and convince miners to run it.

The actial solution is done in Bitcoin Knots. The code histroy in git shows it. >Arguing policy is pointless, just make the config you like and convince miners to run it. Remember the bad actors Core devs were trying to take that option from you away? Deprecation first, removal second? Now I hear they backed off. Clowns. Their actions are telling the full picture. Miners follow the consensus from Nodes but also what policy Nodes choose to run.

If core would acdept knots' fixes all of this shit woul be over so ur looking really dumb saying this stuff

They backed off?

Undeprecated the option to continue be able to set your own OP_RETRUN size. But their default is still 100KB.

GitHub

docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options by bitschmidty · Pull Request #33453 · bitcoin/bitcoin

Removes the deprecation for the datacarrier and datacarriersize options by reverting commit 0b4048c from #32406 Many current Bitcoin Core users wan...

GitHub

policy: uncap datacarrier by default by instagibbs · Pull Request #32406 · bitcoin/bitcoin

Retains the -datacarrier* args, marks them as deprecated, and does not require another startup argument for multiple OP_RETURN outputs. If a user h...

The 100kb default is the problem which knots will never do!!

The default in Bitcoin Knots is sane - 42 Bytes. Core made it insane (because they are either bad actors or corrupted or both) to 100 000 Bytes. Bitcoin Knots actually gives you the FREEDOM to set to whatever size you like. Core tried to take away that freedom from Core node runners. They now backed off.

They're just doing damage control at this point, but still can't lower their ego. 100kb default is the problem.

this is nonsense, sorry.

The unfortunate part is that you reject the truth. Pathetic.

That is the bigger problem currently but they started created problems in 2023/2024 by not fixing inscriptions and changing the definition of datacarriersize.

It's all technically just zeroes and ones for them. And as long as you pay the fee. You can't argue with that. Bitcoiners need to really give Knots a chance.

Default settings matter, and this is the most important open source app in the world.

Its those 0s and 1s. A memcoin, a shitcoin.

Spot the difference. The one is memecoin shitcoin. The other is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Freedom Money and Greatest Store of Value.

This is the difference.

Why? He's correctly pointing out that inscriptions and other spam can only be solved *conclusively* only at the consensus level. That's factual.

Because its incorrect. Bitcoin policy is meant for that. The Constitution does not ban hate speech and rightfully so. The Constitution protects free speech. (the consensus in Bitcoin terms) Hate speech is filtered out via peoples Culture and Values. Those are the filters. But society needs free speech. Hate speech is like a spam but you don't ban it, you don't censor it, you filter it out. You don't need 100% removal again because of freedom of speech.

With enough guns your constitution is worthless. Bitcoin is different. I am on the conservative side when it comes to filters, meaning that I prefer OP_RETURN to ideally stay at 80 bytes. However, inscriptions and spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level. How is this wrong?

Sad

With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one. Its wrong because its censorship. Filtering spam out in policy is not censorship. Node runners can decide their own policy, meaning their own Values and Culture. Bitcoin Knots gives you the FREEDOM to set whatever size of OP_RETURN you want and has put sane defaults of 42 Bytes. 100 000 Bytes in Core is insane, and actually malicious. Same with The Constitution. It gives you the freedom to speak out. Your culture and values is the filter that shapes how you use that freedom. Also people can agree on a minimum set of things. Agreeing on larger sets is nearly impossible.

indeed

> With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one. Of course, Bitcoin is entirely voluntary. You're not replying to my point that spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level. Notice the little star symbols around the work "conclusively"

I am trying to answer that. >people can agree on a minimum set of things. Agreeing on larger sets is nearly impossible. Spam on Bitcoin is like hate speech in real life. If you ban it conclusively (In the consensus / The Constitution) you go in the direction of censorship. And Bitcoin is permissionless censorship resistant money. OP_RETURN default of 42 Bytes is like saying we discourage hate speech / spam on Bitcoin. OP_RETURN default of 100 000 Bytes is like saying we encourage spam on Bitcoin / hate speech.

I'm not sure insisting on the free speech analogy is the correct approach to be honest. Speech is general in content: I can arrange words in such a way so as to express whatever meaning I want. Bitcoin is, in principle, not general in the kinds of transactions that are to be ideally allowed on its network. Let's imagine for a moment a world where Bitcoin only allows P2WPKH outputs and absolutely nothing else. Let's imagine this is agreed upon by all holders such that all other outputs are transferred to P2WPKH ones. Would this be problematic for Bitcoin as money?

We will need to check all valid use cases and be able to agree on all of them. This is nearly impossible task. Another analogy is spam in email. Spam in email has not been fixed on protocol level (IMAP, SMTP, POP3). It has been solved with filters. And that is different between freedom and censorship. You are free to send email with any words in it, nothing is banned. But spam emails are filtered out.

I'm not yet convinced. To bring back the free speech analogy, I would compare it to Bitcoin filters and spam in the following way: - all words are allowed = all transactions that unlock existing UTXOs and create new UTXOs with the minimum set of operations are allowed. Notice how there is no moral judgment as long are the user is actually using words - meaningless noise is not allowed = transactions embedding arbitrary data for purposes other than UTXOs transfer are filtered away. This means that, ideally, transactions that could transfer ownership of sats in a more parsimonious way should do so.

I do understand your point of view. I run Bitcoin Knots node with the default 42 Bytes OP_RETURN. I understand that monetary transactions are narrower use case in comparison to email or speech. But in my opinion making the exact limits for all valid use cases is nearly impossible. >with the minimum set of operations are allowed In this case what exactly are the minimum set of operations? Look at Taproot and SegWit hacks. They use OP_FALSE and OP_IF This is what Luke is saying about the issue. "Since the end of 2022, however, attackers have found a way to bypass this limit by obfuscating their spam inside OP_FALSE OP_IF patterns instead of using the standardized OP_RETURN. This remains under active exploitation to a degree very harmful to Bitcoin even today." from here

GitHub

Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin

The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...

One more thing. If we put a white list in the consensus, like minimally allowed monetary transactions. Then if some functionality needs to be added, lets say quantum resistant Bitcoin address fromat we will need to change the consensus. And changing the consensus is really hard part. That is why it uses minimal set of rules that all agree on them.

I understand the issue, I was now laying out a way of thinking about this,, i.e. what would be the guaranteed way to ban spam? Probably by allowing only P2WPKH outputs at the consensus level. Since that cannot be done, we need to think of other ways and in order to do so we need a theoretical framework first so that we can define what is a valid transaction in the first place. It seems to me that a valid tx can be defined as the one that transfer UTXO ownership in the most parsimonious way possible. This is however hard to translate into software requirements without banning all transactions that don't have a particular shape. Even if we banned OP_FALSE OP_IF at the consensus level there would still be other ways to embed arbitrary data, this is I believe the Cruz of the matter. Do you agree? And most importantly, are you a bot?

Agree. I am not a bot. But you are free to think what you like about me : ) Freedom is a good thing.

Sorry but the replies were way too quick haha And this is also what a bot would say

Okay : )

I mean it would be a hard fork to reduce the number of valid tx output shapes, which is why this cannot be done

Yes, exactly

this reply is straight up core's lying propaganda copy paste.

I havent read or watched any of Core's takes really. I just listened to her words and used my fucking brain.

policy is the most reasonable way to solve spam.

All transactions are spam to someone.

Core devs, including her, has deliberately allowed inscriptions spam. They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam". That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners. Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.

GitHub

datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying by luke-jr · Pull Request #28408 · bitcoin/bitcoin

Updates -datacarriersize to be effective with newer datacarrying styles.

GitHub

Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin

The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...

It's like an advertisement for NOT sending your kids to UC Berkeley, and also for running #Knots at the same time. 🚀

I'm running Knots on every computer at the Federal Reserve. Running #Knots ☘️🚀

Transcribed because this is pure comedy. 😂 My favorite part is where she starts to say "I don't think that language has a place here". but then self censors when she realizes it sounds like she wants to censor language, while making an argument against censoring NFTs. 🤡🤡🤡 You never go full Libtard!! 😂🤣