-
@ kc
2025-05-09 00:47:23
nostr:npub1dryseu6yv7evgz2f7pfzk6wht8flapcfv5l6r4y65pg5px293awqlwwfpc nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze nostr:npub126ntw5mnermmj0znhjhgdk8lh2af72sm8qfzq48umdlnhaj9kuns3le9ll nostr:npub1aghreq2dpz3h3799hrawev5gf5zc2kt4ch9ykhp9utt0jd3gdu2qtlmhct nostr:npub1xapjgsushef5wwn78vac6pxuaqlke9g5hqdfjlanky3uquh0nauqx0cnde
This is a great write up by Bill. I hope that I can do it justice by replying and or asking questions.
#5: My Reply: Yes, I love this aspect. I get to choose the settings for the transactions that I want to go into. Something that I don’t get to do in the legacy world. They dictate everything.
#7: My Reply: Are the node runners are being asked to forgo the option to choose what size op return? Instead of the legacy system dictating policy, now it is the Bitcoin Core developers that tell us what the limit is??? Right???
#8: My Reply: It sounds like the Core Developers are choosing what is carried in the mempool by their wishes?
#9: My Reply: Can’t we just use RBF (replace by fee) instead of paying an accelerator? I have used rbf and it worked good. The fees do happen to go up. I don’t remember how much, but let’s say I send a transaction with 1sat/vB it went up to 5 or 6 sat/vB.
The entire purpose of the change is that people can send transactions that aren’t specifically BITCOIN value transactions…and make it cheaper? This seems like they are encouraging this behavior. I don’t care what people want to store on the chain, on my node, ect. If you pay for it then you deserve the block space. Where I do find it odd is that these Bitcoin Developers are going so far as to make non financial transactions cheaper AND creating a way for them to do it easier. This is where they loose me all together. Where is the motivation coming from to think of this elaborate plan? Who is funding and or pushing this? As a matter of fact…. They are risking changing the code and possibly breaking something for non bitcoin transactions? It doesn’t pass the smell test. I can smell their bullshit from here and it stinks like… like shit. (Excuse my French.)
To top it off with a cherry I watched the interview with Shinobi today and he or Peter said something along the lines of. It doesn’t matter anyway so we are just going to do it.
IF IT DOESN’T MATTER THEN WHY ARE YOU FKNG WITH IT. Yes coders will code and I am happy they have been there so long with bitcoin. I wonder who is the Bitcoin Core Jesus that thinks he invincible and we (the people) have no say?
#11: My Reply: I believe and I may be wrong but one of the reasons to run a FULL node is to know about all of the transactions. One of the reasons to run a PRUNED node is to know about all of the transactions with less block space taken on your hard drive. So this “should be fine” now, but in the future if a layer 2 needs it, then the PRUNED node will no longer be able to purge the op_return SO WE WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE op_return back to how it is now.
Then you give the option back to us to prove your point that op_return with no limit isn’t a problem by saying… BUT “that would only affect node runners who wanted to support that L2.
You are telling me that both full and pruned nodes are working great with op_return now but you want to change it because it doesn’t matter anyhow but you will need to change it because some Layer 2 might require it in the future. DUDE, you already know this is coming. You have a smell to you Jameson, Peter, and Shinobi. Ya’ll are up to something and I want no parts of it!
#12: My Reply: When setting up a pruned node you can set the storage amount of space on your hard drive or ssd to go down to 1 or 2 GB at the minimum and all the way up to a full node. How much space would you save on this op_return? That is a real question. I bet the photo I took of my BTCLOCK today (because bitcoin hit 100k again today) is a lot larger than the so called “space saver from snatching away op_return.
#13: My Reply: Now this sounds like an honest push for deleting the op_return limit. If they would just say this then I would be fine. I would’ve still run Bitcoin Knots on all of my nodes, but I honor men that don’t try to hide to get their way. It’s sneaky and it makes me think they are trying to pull a fast one because we are not developers so we couldn’t possibly understand the complicated world of developing on bitcoin. Maybe I don’t understand what they have going on, but I guarantee you that I understand when there is a snake slithering around rattling his tail trying to pretend that he is here to give me a few satoshi.
I’m not sure if this is the reason for everyone that doesn’t want to store arbitrary data on their hard drives, but for my purposes I don’t think the “CORE issue” (see what I did there?) is actually storing the data. I believe the issue is that the block space is being taken up by non bitcoin transactions that also receive said block space cheaper or with a discount compared to a bitcoin transaction, then you have to add in the other factors like storing the arbitrary data which have accelerated the hard disk space needed by at least 7 to 10 years. I did the math about a year ago and don’t remember the actual numbers. The point to that is that The block size is compounding super super fast compared to not having those transactions. It doesn’t seem like a problem today, but in 20 years we will have at least 100 years worth of storage requirements because no thought nor action was taken seriously now. BUT THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON op_return. I’m O.J……… OK
#14: My Reply: Do you know anyone that has been affected by not having a complete view of the block fees? I have never ran into that and I send a ton of on chain transactions. I run nodes with mempool installed and I always receive the time that I expect. I may play with the minutia and put 1.17 sat/vB but I always get what I expect plus or minus 10 to 12 hours. If I am unsure then I triple the fee estimate and get into the next block.
#15: My Reply: I would like to know more about this. I don’t know anyone that has ran into a justice transaction yet. I hope it never happens to me because people are acting in good faith. My question is: who is the moderator for the justice transaction? I would think a lightning developer that has the know how and understands the fee estimator to get into a block within a timely matter. I would assume that if there is a justice transaction then the lightning node that is acting in bad faith isn’t getting the transaction and or satoshi back. Why is there such a rush to get a timely transaction sent?
#16: My Reply: Yes that is true, but can’t we just go into the Bitcoin Node configuration and set a higher memory limit for your personal mempool? I have mine set quite high. The default is somewhere in the 333 range? I believe mine is set to 1500. I want my node to keep and to know about as many transactions as there are out there. 1. because it sucks when your transaction has been sitting there with 2 sat/vB for 4 months because “arbitrary” transactions are filling the blocks and the fees are crazy high. (It wasn’t an important transaction so it was worth it to wait and not RBF.) The very first time this happened, I didn’t know that my transaction was dropped out of the collective mempool because I wasn’t running a node yet and didn’t have knowledge of this concept yet. Now, my node is set up so that most transactions will be held by my node and when fees drop to a level that the gossip network relays the transaction that has been sitting for a while it can be picked up by others and mined.
Plus I run Datum, Knots, create block templates and it is better to know about all potential transactions so you don’t have to ask the network if it meets consensus. This would take more time for your node to verify.
#17: My Reply: I am so glad that you saved this for last!!!!! We are currently saving in witness data no? How about we do what Satoshi did? Focus on not storing anything in witness data and store it in op_return, but let’s not forget that Satoshi also had a limit on op_return. So it is SETTLED! We are not storing anything in witness data, op_return stays with a limit. I knew your post was worth the read!!!!!!!
The ending and My Reply: My father always said “if you can’t explain something simply then you don’t truly understand it.” The Core Developers understand it, but only at their level. They can’t see why we have different points of view from them. It’s because we care about something different than they do. You want to write and push code. I want Bitcoin not to be touched every 6 months because you want to be looked at as proficient. We all know that you all are brilliant in your unique way. (That is not to put them down in any way.) But video games need coding to make them better bitcoin does not especially when everyone doesn’t agree. Can’t you see that you have the same thing that we have. A BLIND SPOT SOMEWHERE. The difference here is that we have Luke and Knots to go to. Where do the Bitcoin Core Developers run to?
#Bitcoin
#lightning
#BitcoinKnots
#BitcoinCore
#Noderunner
#TothebitcoinCEO
#mempool
#taprootwizards
#Ocean
#Datum
#bitcoinmining
#DIYBitcoin
#runanode
#runyourownnode
#donttrustverify
#Satoshi