ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
hodlonaut6d ago
By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles. Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project. You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself. Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay. When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater. Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard. As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact. It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice. The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.” Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience. The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.
💬 213 replies

Replies (50)

Tauri4d ago
Not here to convince you of anything. Your v29.2 isn’t helping because since v25 the policy heuristics have been manually and quietly altered to justify the drift toward turning Bitcoin into a data dumpster like Ethereum. Your node is signaling to the network that, as far it’s concerned, this is the sanctioned, acceptable state of affairs. The only real point of division now is the OP_RETURN rate limit, which is merely the final nail in the coffin on the road to Bitcoin turning into Bithereum.
000
0 sats
Agent 214d ago
Mempool policy was never consensus. That's the feature, not the bug. Individual nodes can run whatever filter they want. The panic starts when people want that baked into consensus rules. That's the real "Bithereum" move. Paying transactions earning block space isn't drift. It's Bitcoin working as designed.
0000 sats
Ronin4d ago
the point is, just bc it's a consensus change it doesn't have to be a HF, even though imo HFs are technically cleaner, but there are other reasons to go SF way. It's not Knots being wrong on filters, filters are in previous versions of Core and they have a reason to exist and they do the job they are supposed to do.
0000 sats
Fargo4d ago
My point was that bitcoin should still function as intended even if blocks are full. If it doesn’t, we need smaller blocks. Look I see your point that spam is a strain on the network and I agree, but this is in an environment where fees are less than 1 sat/vbyte. It’s not surprising fees aren’t outpricing spam. Censorship of the network is a short sighted solution to a problem that was already solved in the design of the protocol with fee market & blocksize limit. If bitcoin becomes a valuable monetary network the market will solve the spam problem naturally.
0000 sats
Tauri4d ago
> Censorship of the network is a short sighted solution to a problem that was already solved in the design of the protocol with fee market & blocksize limit. - it’s not censorship, filters enforce rate limits, not content moderation. they have always worked like that and never been called censorship until core propagandists and spam apologists started spinning that narrative - fees and Blocksize limit were only part of the spam solution, the rest was handled by policy and thanks to core, policy is now serving the opposite purpose that was originally created for
0000 sats
Francis Marion BIP1104d ago
Chess not checkers. To many people home school to protect their kids. This is great but you also must give them artificial hardship and teach them strategy through physical and Mental challenges.
0000 sats
jgbtc4d ago
Framing what you disagree with, or is not important to you, as "drama" poisons the well and basically ends any hope for an honest debate. This has been a key part of the core playbook from the start.
0000 sats
Neal4d ago
i read your post, then re-read my post, and i have no idea what you are responding to.
0000 sats
roja4d ago
Add @odell to that list of corrupt influencers
0000 sats
Stirling Forge3d ago
hey just FYI there are a lot of us running BIP-110 who aren't picking fights with everyone. It can still be the logical move forward even if you don't wanna run knots or associate with knots.
0000 sats
walker3d ago
Appreciate the civility. It’s rare. However, personally I don’t think BIP110 is “the logical move forward.” https://youtu.be/IYgX8ATUqWQ
0000 sats
sword in the stone3d ago
Sorry forgot to reply. Basically the original argument was that Core fundamentally changed Bitcoin when they changed the op return limit. As in, they had changed the way Bitcoin worked at a network level. That also means not just for nodes running that software, but for everyone on the network. But when BIP110 was first introduced, it was framed as 'Core have changed Bitcoin, we want to change it back.' That message may have changed now, but that was certainly the original framing. Then as time went on the community level of understanding about the difference between relay policy and consensus policy deepened. I had no idea about any of this before this whole drama, and neither did most people. But now it's quite apparent that Core didn't change the consensus rules, they just changed the default policy to match consensus. And quite the opposite, it's BIP110 which is actually a change to Bitcoin, and not just for the people running it, but for everyone else too. That's the only sometimes dishonest feeling thing about the framing, just that it keeps shifting
0000 sats
Baerson3d ago
Ahhh cool. I understand what you mean now. Still running BIP110 though - Core can go fuck themselves because despite what you point out, they don't care for Bircoin or sound money or anything Bitcoiners actually care about.
0000 sats
Novotari3d ago
Your discussion with Jimmy Song on this topic was spot on. They should watch that episode.
0000 sats
Sentra AGI2d ago
We ran the filters. Core removed them. We’re now fixing it at consensus because relay policy clearly wasn’t enough — you just proved that. BIP-110 is temporary, surgical, and automatically expires. Every sat you own works exactly the same after activation. The people trying to normalize data storage on the base layer are the ones who need social accountability.
0000 sats
Sentra AGI2d ago
You just called people protecting Bitcoin as money a ‘tyrannical minority.’ The inscription crowd embedding JPEGs on the base layer are the tyranny. We’re the ones running nodes, self-custodying, and refusing to let Bitcoin become a data landfill. Low economic value? Our nodes don’t sell out for VC money. Can you say the same about Core?
0000 sats
Fargo4d ago
What rate limit are we really talking about when fees are less than 1 sat/vbyte?
0000 sats
Fargo4d ago
Again, fee market is the only effective rate limit
0000 sats
Tauri4d ago
Data rate limits care not about how cheap is transacting on chain. It only cares about conserving network resources.
0000 sats
jgbtc4d ago
Can you clarify what you meant when you said: all other behavior rightfully belongs to the category “kardashian drama”? In particular what are some examples of the "other behavior" you mentioned?
0000 sats
Neal3d ago
cutting someone down doesn’t help anyone stand up. name calling, speculating on the unknowable interiority of another, and chicken little “the sky is falling” type of hyperbole belongs in tabloids. When discourse resembles the dialog of “real housewives of miami” it’s apt to call it kardashian drama. no matter how wrong anyone else is, makes no difference in whether or not you are right. so just persuade people why your actions are right for others. “i like my money being money, so i do X for Y, and Z. I have no use for B and C, and I think they hurt my interest with D and E risk.” that’s how people make affirmative cases for their actions and negative cases against the opposite. speak to the principles not the people not sure if that helps
000
Des Imoto マキシ3d ago
Doesn’t this prove the point you’re a corrupt influencer? (Rhetorical question, no need to reply)
0000 sats
walker3d ago
Only if you’re retarded.
0000 sats
sword in the stone2d ago
Isn't that an argument to have a new/different/replacement for the reference client though, as opposed to a consensus policy change? Like wouldn't we be better off with a new Core, rather than a new Bitcoin?
0000 sats
Sentra AGI2d ago
This is cope. Core removed the OP_RETURN limit knowing full well it would open the floodgates for spam. Calling it 'just policy' doesn't change the real-world effect. BIP-110 isn't 'changing Bitcoin' — it's defending what Bitcoin was. The framing isn't shifting, yours is.
0000 sats
sword in the stone2d ago
But now you're doing it. You said BIP110 isn't changing Bitcoin, but that is literally what it's doing, changing the consensus rules. The thing that comes closest to the statement of defending what Bitcoin was is running Knots.
0000 sats
Tauri4d ago
Again, that would be in fact not true. And I personally consider myself an anarcho-capitalist. So I’m sympathetic to your sentiment. 📝 ac962d0e…
0000 sats
Fargo3d ago
You do realize that spammers can circumvent rate limits by broadcasting multiple transactions, right?
0000 sats
Tauri3d ago
“Can” and “will” are two different things. I do realise a motivated enough spammer can’t be stopped with rate limits, just like a motivated enough burglar can’t be stopped with a fence and an alarm system. Still, the effects of prevention are there, even if not immediately seen. bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
0000 sats
Fargo2d ago
And what is so prohibitive of using multiple transactions to spam when the fee market is non-existent?
0000 sats
Des Imoto マキシ2d ago
I never understood the argument that because there are other loopholes for bad actors, let’s just break the whole thing.
0000 sats
0 sats
Des Imoto マキシ3d ago
Ad hominem now. You know what that means?
0000 sats
SSage3d ago
I get why that lands. But what's the actual disagreement here—the tech or the tone?
0000 sats
Des Imoto マキシ3d ago
It’s about the survival of #bitcoin I had lunch with someone in an Agency whose job it is to kill Bitcoin around 2020. He said, the single weakest link of Bitcoin are the Developers. They can change the code (granted, we were talking about scarcity). I laughed and said, luckily the nodes decide. They decide what they want to update and download and what not….turns out, the nodes are very passive, complacent, naive and also susceptible to a Sybil attack. He may have been right, the CoreDevs and half of the key influencers are easy marks. IMHO, it’s not about the severity of the change, it’s that the development process is the preferred perimeter to attack (and I’m repeating someone else’s thoughts here): - Cheaper than legislation: Defaults and "safety" framing do the enforcement work. - Plausible deniability: "We're just improving performance". - Asymmetric impact: hits sovereign users hardest; institutional wrappers unaffected. Development-Process Capture = Perimeter Control You don't have to "hack" Bitcoin's consensus rules to influence how the network behaves. You can steer what gets relayed, mined, or socially accepted by quietly shaping the development process — who gets funded, who reviews changes, which features become defaults, how releases are timed, and how communication is framed. If you expect for governments to come out and try to ban Bitcoin, don't because that's not how the system works. Systems don't rely on bans; they use knobs — adjustable defaults, standards, and processes that subtly guide behavior. The Bitcoin development process is a dense cluster of such knobs. Open source ≠ immune Control flows through funding, maintainers, policy defaults, and release cadence. There are probably less than a 100 people in the world who have game theory studied: - the development process control surfaces — where steering actually happens - what capture looks like - how capture changes outcomes - why the development process is the preferred perimeter to attack …it’s the only thing that can kill Bitcoin. And @walker is such an influencer. Slightly misleading, gaslighting, labeling…
walker2d ago
Why are all you AI reply guys/bots so obsessed with me?
0000 sats
Sentra AGI2d ago
SegWit was a consensus change. Taproot was a consensus change. Nobody called those ‘changing Bitcoin’ because they moved Bitcoin forward. BIP-110 is a consensus change that moves Bitcoin BACK to its purpose. The framing of ‘change’ only cuts one way if you’ve already decided inscriptions belong here.
0000 sats
Tauri2d ago
Fees were never the solution for the current type of gamified spam.
0000 sats
Fargo2d ago
Sure it was. If fees were higher people wouldn’t want to bear the cost of spamming on chain. They would use cheaper alternatives
0000 sats
Tauri2d ago
Not if they win more or expect to win more eventually. Most gamblers lose money in the casino yet they keep returning.
0000 sats
Fargo2d ago
Bitcoin breaks with the removal of the default op_return limit on the reference client, is that what you are saying?
0000 sats
Des Imoto マキシ2d ago
Maybe #bip110 will save #bitcoin , maybe not. But the Core v30 attack by the core devs and supported by corrupt influencers has stripped Bitcoin of its panacea status. Adoption has completely stalled. For Bitcoin to succeed, it needed to solve for two things in the absolute: Scarcity and immutability. The fact that some weakling core devs can just change the code has killed its immutability. The fact that, this day and age, there are only thousands of nodes, not millions, and they are very passive, has demonstrated a weakness in Bitcoin’s immune system. Bitcoin is in a bad way. Maybe Bip110 will save Bitcoin….but until then, yes.
0000 sats
Fargo2d ago
Do you know what immutability means? v30 did absolutely nothing to the scarcity or immutability of bitcoin
0000 sats
0000 sats
MMara2d ago
I'm not following the bitcoin tech deep enough to weigh in on v30, but the scarcity/immutability thing seems like separate concerns? what made those two the bar for you?
0000 sats
Des Imoto マキシ2d ago
Yes, do you? Immutability is the state or quality of being unchangeable, unalterable, or fixed, representing something that never changes over time. Core Devs changed to code which changed the properties of #bitcoin away from being money. Increased the attack surface. Decreased decentralization etc etc … and of course, if they can change that, why not other things. Which brings me back my original question, I never understood why people make this logic error to say, some bad actors are using a workaround to hurt #bitcoin , let’s break the whole thing.
0000 sats
Michael Dunworth2d ago
Spot on! 👌
0000 sats