CCU @CryptoCoinUser

youtu.be/prMsX1gkj7c?si… @Dennis_Porter_ is fundraising to help fund Knots development, bug bounties, etc. satoshiaction.org/ddf

This is the perspective that has gotten missed: There is no context in which you would let random, anonymous strangers upload 100kb files to your computer on a self-regulating p2p network. The constant appeals to censorship resistance are a complete red herring. Mempool filters have never resulted in censorship - But even if they did, censorship resistance can never come at the expense of people neglecting to take responsibility for what their computers are doing. Here's what's different with OP_RETURN - Old methods of storing nasty stuff in the chain required tonnes of obfuscation to work. The data necessarily would get broken into multiple chunks and someone would need to intentionally reconstruct it all and people naively relaying/storing it can plausibly absolve themselves of responsibility in doing so. OP_RETURN at default 100kb size kills plausible deniability completely. You're downloading, processing and uploading *raw* gigabytes of disgusting JPG and MP4 files. And Core are (for now) deprecating your ability to do otherwise. 80 bytes of OP_RETURN is a couple of hashes or a 16x16 pixel JPG. No one can realistically do anything with that that's going to make running a Bitcoin node unacceptable. 100kb is a different story. That's a low quality video of God-knows what. And I'm sorry, but having a neutral monetary network does not require treating all data the same way. I am expected to discriminate against certain types of data in every context. I just usually rely on third parties to do that on my behalf. Bitcoin doesn't work that way, it's on us to self-regulate and if we can't, running a Bitcoin node is going to be rightly stigmatized and no one is going to do it outside of tightly regulated environments.

New vid -

youtube.com/watch?v=spd3pR… @VORAVAULT startup seems like a legit private & wrench-attack-resistant Bitcoin self-custody solution provider. But it's a shame its founders (at 25 min mark for about 10 min) side with Core vs @BitcoinKnots, parroting Core's out-of-context talking points (that @GrassFedBitcoin has by now debunked or at least put into context - without straw-manning Core). Thus the Vora founders are siding with those who undermine the crucial techno-social layer of Bitcoin, the same layer keeps Bitcoin from devolving into just another "crypto".

Has anyone tried to model with AI some probabilities of how the current Bitcoin #NodeWars will play out? For example, @BitcoinKnots vs Core, spam vs monetary txns, @ocean_mining vs cenralized pools, etc. Too many intertwined variables? Hard to model the human factor?

youtu.be/b_Vtgau29iI?si… Another gr8 summary by @GrassFedBitcoin on the state of the #NodeWars . Takeaway: "don't be afraid of getting involved in this discussion" despite the technical complexity, as long as ur general premise is to keep Bitcoin money VS spammed into irrelevance

Narrative evolution in the political battle to undermine Bitcoin as a monetary network: 1. There's no such thing as "spam" in Bitcoin. Transactions are either valid or invalid. 2. OK spam exists and it's a problem but it'll get priced out by genuine monetary activity. 3. OK the trend in the opposite direction is clear, but the proposed solution of filtering spam at the mempool level does nothing at all as miners can still include this stuff in blocks regardless. (And despite the fact that spam filtration is something we've always done, it's somehow now "censorship" as of spring 2023). 4. OK filtering actually works extremely well and is basically forcing some BitVM schemes to use fake pubkeys instead of OP_RETURN which - for the sake of *maybe* preventing a few KBs of UTXO bloat a year - we need to aggressively resolve *now* by forcing nodes to relay giant OP_RETURNs by breaking the datacarriersize filter in the hopes that BitVMers use OP_RETURN instead. 5. OK yes, this is total and utter submission to the attempts to optimize Bitcoin for data storage as opposed to monetary activity as per every other meaningless crypto but hey, we are just Bitcoin Core and you can run something else if you don't like it - isn't open source wonderful?! 6. OK if large numbers of Bitcoiners actually start running something other than Core we'll simply ignore the message being sent loudly and clearly - that a growing % of people running nodes have no interest in becoming free relays for spammers and miners and that in a sane world, the default implementation puts the priorities of monetary users above scammers and even miners. 7. OK we will invoke disaster scenarios that must come from spam filtration - centralized mining, bad fee estimation, poor block propagation - combine with other fear tactics about "Knots being maintained by one guy". 8. Respond to all debunking of the above disaster scenarios with simple assertions that those who disagree "occupy something other than reality". Rest on laurels of deeply established trust of Core that it is extremely painful for people to question. Contrast all this with the "filter-boi" side which have not needed to twist themselves into Knots trying to justify the unjustifiable - 1. Spam filters work, they optimize Bitcoin as a payment network rather than a generic database. 2. If you let filters fall into disrepair or maliciously break them then Bitcoin fails the same way cryptos always do - nodes become an abused and disregarded commons while we pretend we're decentralized.

youtube.com/live/y4Wtwbmsz…

@MrMPodcast @rkbtc @21st_capital No mention of the threat of Bitcoin becoming just another crypto due to mining centralization and relay nodes getting overwhelmed with mempool spam that Core devs now refuse to fight.

Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit: 1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier. 2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated"). 3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit. The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.

@btcheartattack @LukeDashjr Elitist capture: want maintain your elite "core dev" status? Then tow the party line.

Bitcoin Core offered a formidable defence against fiat-creep infecting this space. It has now fallen and we're down to the last line of defence. Bitcoiners. It they fail to recognize what's going on and continue on the Core path then the foundation will have rotted out and the fate sealed. Bitcoin can survive malicious devs acting against nodes in theory. Now the theory is being put to the test and I hope to God it plays out that way. Current adoption of Core 30 (which of course doesn't yet exist): 0%

DO NOT UPGRADE to bitcoin core v30

Parker Lewis @parkeralewis

a year ago

I would encourage anyone running Bitcoin Core to do their own research on this one before upgrading when released. The horrible precedent it sets and the combined risk of a centralized Core + centralized mining pools creates an untenable situation (Op_Return is a distraction!).

41 96 609 72K 26

Bitcoin Coremunist Manifesto

Bitcoin Core is done. It's on you to pay attention and figure out you're being lied to and abandon it. You can't have something as beautiful and convenient as a centralized, benevolent, uncorrupted reference implementation for a project as disruptive as Bitcoin forever. It was always a case of when it turns bad, not if. So where do you go? Unlike Core - I'm not going to pretend it's trivial to just leave and use/build something else. And this means that practically - for most Bitcoiners - Knots is the only good option for now. If you want to build something else I will help you in any way I can. Embrace the chaos and take responsibility for Bitcoin. Don't abdicate to the experts.

@MrMPodcast @ztownsend @meanwhile There's serious "duration risk" of committing to a 3rd party holding your BTC for decades, since there's a non-trivial risk of Bitcoin becoming just another "crypto", due to Core devs welcoming spammers & crypto VCs. See @GrassFedBitcoin on the OP_RETURN controversy. @ztownsend

Nice quick show, but you did not ask where does the yield for whole-life insurance comes from. I head that Meawhile's hurdle rate is 2% - how can anyone guarantee that yield for decades into the future? Just because they are audited by TradFi does not mean their business model is sustainable. Only legit BTC yield I can think of is lightning routing fees, but even that should dip below 2% yield in a few years.

Yep. The tone of today's press release was "Core doesn't control anything, the magic of open source means we can screw around all we want and there are no ramifications to that!" In reality there is an enormous responsibility placed in the hands of Core devs and they want to shrug it off by invoking FOSS principles that don't apply to Bitcoin in practice.

James O'Beirne @jamesob

a year ago

I happen to agree with the Core guys on the filter stuff, but Maxwell's sentiment here is simplistic bordering on disingenuous. "You can just do things!" Well, not really. Core has a tremendous amount of latent power for at least two reasons: (i) every business has basically

24 35 328 151K 48

The OP_RETURN controversy highlights what I call Bitcoin's "techno-social" layer. It's the few who do their Bitcoin "civic duty", like running a node (even if it's not a major "economic node") while being vigilant about which software / filters their node uses. This layer is crucial for Bitcoin's success, even though it's too *technical* for normies, while a lot of techies (incl. many Core devs) fail to grasp the (anti-spam) *social* ethos required for Bitcoin to thrive. @GrassFedBitcoin understands how the social and the technical components are interlinked IRL, and is sounding the alarm how the two are drifting apart in the #NodeWars