-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:55:30
Reminds me of a Bitcoin lawyer who was often a guest on Junseth's podcast, forgot his name, who used to say: "I'm a lawyer, but not YOUR lawyer"
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:51:14
cc nostr:npub1xapjgsushef5wwn78vac6pxuaqlke9g5hqdfjlanky3uquh0nauqx0cnde
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:49:43
Excellent take by me! :-)
The fact that many Bitcoin Core developers are paid by someone, when that someone is NOT YOU, does not make YOU a customer that gets to demand things. You need to hire developers directly if you want to work on your behalf.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpc3xpfa0xwem5vq8gygug4ne8nh4354tg0zevk7mke2ljruh8xdvqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qpqewxx4342477wnl2ctl4qh44mfr8wftd5znchxdwstrkmtpa6f5hsc3x62e
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:44:05
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqsvgyvfqz383j30szkg24hzyvvcvenmzdp2areaea68n0g8wnspdcqj6tstn
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:36:48
Quadrupple it!
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:20:11
That particular section was mostly written ten years ago, even before the Blocksize wars. Social media powered brigading wasn't much of a thing back then. It could make sense to update it and mention that each fork may or may not have a moderation policy.
https://img.sprovoost.nl/845ede961226b3d832259cca1fea1ea96d195debbf21512b1eba2918475f48b7.webp
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:12:15
Especially important now:
3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:11:20
On Consensus and Humming in the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)
Classic read.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:06:06
Moderation guidelines are not in the Bitcoin Core codebase itself. That would make no sense, since any fork could and should have its own policy.
There's ongoing effort to move bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin-core/bitcoin to reduce that confusion.
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/blob/main/MODERATION-GUIDELINES.md
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 18:00:02
Well, according to AI - which must be right - this way the best quote from me in the nostr:npub1hkuk45c6c6h3y0rks0z4wa0wyyud5ru0qy0rn9x4dgnjwrnfy46s5a432p podcast: https://riverside.fm/guest-page?sessionId=2c859898-b88a-4016-abb6-c0fc6e8cb3c8&clientId=3d897568-30e6-4244-8a6d-59ebb8c8855b&archiveId=sjors-qg14v9s75&t=080a6fc0b5a20ddcd074
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 15:54:00
How many times do people need to repeat this? USE SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU'RE UNHAPPY.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 14:13:28
There's also the question of how many people audit the 1370 commits that make Knots different. It's basically a giant patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, similar to what Liquid does. Despite my issues with Luke, I do trust him to not steal peoples coins.
But that's not an ideal trust model. Part of the problem is a lack of upstreaming. And that's not always because of a fundamental disagreement on functionality. Sometimes the patches just don't meet the review bar for Bitcoin Core. That itself isn't the end of the world either, but it does make comparative review harder.
But I hear OpenSats is going to fix that with grants? :-)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v28.1...bitcoinknots:bitcoin:28.x-knots
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqpxfzhdwlm3cx9l6wdzyft8w8y9gy607tqgtyfq7tekaxs7lhmxfqqsvk6zsekmxpe3ju4emtj3sy3ttvld37ca8r9gfya68s0g26sg869sf5g5j7
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 13:35:21
Here's an alternative timeline to consider: Bitcoin Core as a project seizes to exist, no more updates appear on Github. The current developers are all hired by different companies that can afford it. They continue to work, and informally exchange patches.
Some of those patches are published, and maybe one or two developers maintain a public collection of the most useful patches. The end result would be that most users are running inferior software compared to the corporations with money. Afaik this would be perfectly legal under the MIT license.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 13:23:15
People seem to be confused about the fact that although Bitcoin Core is open source software, the bitcoin/bitcoin Github repository is a private space, not a public square. As a private space it has rules. Very few, and there's not much enforcement, but they're there. And those rules are not decided by users (in fact, ultimately Microsoft controls the domain).
People are free to fork the code and create an alternative space to work on that code. There they can have whatever rules they want. You can make it completely private. The MIT license is very permissive, you don't even have to share the resulting code. You could also allow anyone to comment and sell viagra pills. Up to you!
Such code forks are not ideal though. It could create confusion around where to download the "real" Bitcoin Core. Slightly different codebases make things difficult to audit. When implementations diverge too much, it will make future soft forks hard to coordinate. But if contributors to Bitcoin Core can't get any work done when doing so in public, they'll have to find another way to get work done.
So as a user, you should not be happy when brigading happens on the repo. Those are precious developer days being wasted, in which actual bugs are not being fixed - or even introduced because tired developers make mistakes.
Even if you disagree with a specific change, you have an interest in that being communicated in a non-disruptive manner.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqst63zxyrpgzjmy9wx5fcs8pkqk27wa2msp6vzf7xcjtgydgm4mwysvfdctu
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 12:44:35
> You suggested censoring people which is a form of harassment
It's complete nonsense and I don't have time to engage bad faith actors like "BitcoinIsFuture".
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 12:38:52
[1] De Volkskrant, 29 april 2025, ‘Cryptomijnen in een land onder hoogspanning’, (https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/ethiopie-bitcoin-miners-crypto~v1402259/)
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-06 12:38:47
Ethiopië is niet eens een voormalige kolonie, maar de Tweede Kamer wil er zich mee bemoeien. Tekst van de motie:
Vragen van de leden Diederik van Dijk, Stoffer en Flach (allen SGP) aan de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken, van Financiën en voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingshulp over het bericht ‘Cryptomijnen in een land onder hoogspanning’.
• Bent u bekend met het artikel ‘Cryptomijnen in een land onder hoogspanning’?[1]
• Welke Nederlandse of Europese wet- en regelgeving, dan wel IMVO-normen, zijn van toepassing op Nederlandse ondernemers en bedrijven die actief zijn in het cryptomijnen in derde landen?
• Wat is precies de toegevoegde waarde van het cryptomijnen in Ethiopië aan de lokale economie en samenleving?
• In hoeverre profiteert de lokale bevolking van Ethiopië van de praktijken die in het artikel genoemd worden?
• Kan het kabinet toelichten wat volgens haar de wenselijkheid is van het cryptomijnen in Ethiopië door Nederlandse ondernemers en bedrijven?
• Hoe ziet de inzet van het kabinet eruit om de beperkte elektriciteit die voorradig is in Ethiopië ten goede te laten komen aan de bevolking zelf?
• Acht het kabinet het noodzakelijk om met extra regelgeving te komen om de negatieve gevolgen van cryptomijnen in derde landen te verminderen, en zo nee, waarom niet?
• Wat is het morele oordeel van het kabinet over het artikel, met name met het oog op de schrijnende armoede en grote maatschappelijke problemen die een land als Ethiopië teisteren?
• Hoe verhoudt de ontwikkeling die in het artikel genoemd wordt zich tot de Nederlandse hulp aan Ethiopië? Werken deze elkaar niet tegen?
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/kamervragen/detail?id=2025D19807&did=2025D19807
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 17:51:25
Roger Ver 'calm and politely' calling out Bitcoin Core censorship, even of people who've been around since the early days. He calls out their conflicts of interest and corruption, their deviation from the original version of Bitcoin... And they always go off on these super technical tangents. And they're mean on camera. "Won't even answer a single question".
Install Bitcoin ABC, now! (yes, it's still actively maintained)
P.S. wow people were young back then
https://youtu.be/dUxXGmgv5mo
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 16:23:48
I don't mean to diss OP here, but free market analogies have often misguided people. Sometimes you need good engineering. It really is what led to Bitcoin Cash.
But that doesn't mean blindly trusting engineers. You should find out if they really know what they're doing. How to find out? That's a hard problem, i.e. they can't all get on a person phone call with you, some have an abrasive communication style, sometimes a problem seems very simple but take a lot of curriculum knowledge to grok. You can't just trust them either when they say "it's complicated", because that what charlatans would say too.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqstac4p6x0qethuhec2p9a62ln0x0d6mkwgnq23v48gsvwxx3s02asx75yle
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 16:20:07
To cite Roger Ver:
> The market determines the ideal block size and network fee.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/errkm2/the_market_determines_the_ideal_block_size_and/
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 16:10:13
I would recommend Greg Maxwell and AJ Towns latest replies on the mailinglist. It's harmful if people use different settings, whether that's by configuration option (-datacarriersize) or by code forks (Knots). The chaos of a "free market" for settings is disruptive for the network, which only helps its real adversary: governments.
The custom Knots default of 42 bytes caused problems in the past for Samurai wallet (which they in turn used for their drama marketing). In theory it should also interfere with compact block relay (I haven't seen measurements though).
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/aBSVn7nJnrheLy5Z@erisian.com.au/
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 14:16:53
Yes, that's on. But I get a notification for each zap afaik. I don't get that many, a few per day, but I really don't like push notifications :-)
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 13:22:15
So although I understand it doesn't look great when I respond like this, it would have been even worse if I attacked him without provocation. Even though perhaps that would have been more ethical.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 13:20:03
Since then he hasn't attacked me personally, until now, because I reviewed a pull request he hates.
In the mean time Luke has attacked Bitcoin Core on multiple occasions, e.g. creating needless drama around Taproot activation. Meanwhile despite calling Bitcoin Core all sort of bad names, he uses 99.99% of its code for Knots. Although he does occasionally contribute back, and of course has contributed much in the far past, it's not a healthy open source relationship.
Much of the drama he creates also comes across as either blatant self-promotion or his company Ocean (which I like, so that's unfortunate).
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 13:12:19
To be fair, my router runs BSD, I have several Ubuntu machine, a Mac to get actual work done and a Windows machine for Bitcoin Core occasional testing.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 13:03:21
* after which he block me
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 13:02:48
If you're saying I should have called him out earlier, you're correct.
In fact I probably did back in 2017 on Twitter, because he blocked me for a few years.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 11:00:25
Looks like there's a beta? https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/utreexo/
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 10:59:21
If you're worried about sitting on user funds for too long, and the app can't do all this in the background, it's fine if the app nags me once a day or so collect the sats. And send a push message like: X dust ready to collect!
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 10:56:55
nostr:npub1kvaln6tm0re4d99q9e4ma788wpvnw0jzkz595cljtfgwhldd75xsj9tkzv can you add a threshold amount setting below which:
1. You don't send a push notification
2. You don't show the transaction
3. You do collect the zap(s), either in the background or the next online session
#spam #zapvertising
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 09:29:04
That's what I've been told, I don't know if there's (public) data on this.
It does make sense. While the big corporate miners can hire fancy developers, who would use Mac or Linux, there's many very small miners out there. Those are often "normal" people who are good at buying equipment and getting access to electricity. Most "normal" people use Windows.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 09:04:50
One way to look at OP_RETURN usage by "L2" projects, is to get a sense of what future op codes could look like. If people keep sticking zero knowledge proofs there, maybe at some it makes sense to just add a zero knowledge proof output type. Obviously that's a _very_ long time out, and there might be very good reasons to never do it. But you can look at it as a (permissionless) draft.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 09:01:32
And yes, Linux people look at Mac users they way Mac users look at Windows users.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 09:00:57
Windows is back!
Although Satoshi started out with a Windows client, and apparently many miners still use it, most sane developers and security conscious people use Mac or Linux. Over time this led to increasing neglect of Windows support in #BitcoinCore, to the point where some people joked (?) about just dropping it entirely.
But it seems there's renewed attention.
https://img.sprovoost.nl/2096c8f45ef082bde223d06fc0de0b2c866db8c7936ef7adb02f5979b0f8cb49.png
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:53:26
From a PR point of view I agree that tone matters. But I find it unreasonable to expect people to be very nice and friendly when they're attacked by a brigade of mostly bad faith actors, whether it's just people who refuse to read up on a topic before expressing their strong opinion, or actually targeted attacks to intimate developers into not writing or reviewing code.
That, and he's just French :-)
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:42:38
And from that I'm assuming various BitVM schemes will work in similar ways. Hard to predict what ends up being successful here.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:41:44
The Stack Exchange post links to the mailinglist post by Antoine Poinsot. It it turn uses Citrea as the example. They use some sort of watch-tower scheme that needs to look for zero-knowledge proofs on chain and then react.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:40:24
This also illustrates that if we had made this change earlier, they would not have designed the system to create unspendable public keys in the first place.
They have no financial incentive to deviate from the original design. And once such a system goes live, assuming it has any uptake, their engineers will be busy with all sorts of more urgent things.
Any typical corporate CTO would look at this situation and say: hey look, there's a bunch of drama here, let's assume the brigaders win and the OP_RETURN limit stays in place. So let's just stick to the original design. We're not price sensitive, so it's the safest option. It also saves us a bunch of engineering hours. Also, it protects our engineers from being harassed.
Finally, this also goes to show that we really need to make progress on Utreexo, because UTXO set growth is a sitting duck. All we can do is ask people nicely to not grow it needlessly.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:25:48
Right, that would make more sense. In the insane scheme of things.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:18:35
Stamps use CounterParty under the hood, which simply switches to bare multisig once the payload goes over 80 bytes. With the proposed Bitcoin Core change to policy, or just considering relay reality, CounterParty could stop doing that. But afaik nobody is maintaining it, and the inefficiency is a feature for some of its users (stamps).
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:17:20
With stamps the explicit goal was to bloat the UTXO set. Their marketing framed that as "unprunable".
Counterparty was designed before SegWit and due to fee spikes around that time was pretty much unmaintained afaik.
BRC-20 is just crazy. JK, I have no idea how that one works.
https://bitcoinexplainedpodcast.com/@nado/episodes/bitcoin-explained-76-stamps-and-the-invalid-block-caused-by-it
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 08:07:19
This seemed worth clarifying, so I did the thing where I ask a question and answer it myself:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/126208/4948
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 07:19:13
With regards to what I said here:
> This then encourages them to be on the safe side and use these filters. Bitcoin Core might then have to adopt similar rules in order to produce blocks that are safe.
This would be a "nice" use case for what Greg Maxwell suggested today on the mailing list (and earlier on Reddit), to separate relay policy from mining policy - where the latter can be more strict:
> That said, Bitcoin core has generally not
had knobs to adjust relay policy as distinct from mining policy in large
part because of the design assumption that the two need to be the same.
But in this case if there were a knob here I think would make more sense
for it to control mining policy rather than relay policy, since it would
actually have some effect in the mining context (in excluding the txn from
your own blocks) while as a relay only thing it is impotent.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 06:24:46
Luke is signalling his followers to attack me via his clown emojis. That has nothing to do with being on the side of any argument. It's an intimidation tactic to stop me from reviewing the pull request. It's as effective as the filters though.
My observation that he is a cult leader is not based solely on this incident. He's been consistently behaving like one since at least the 2017 UASF days.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 06:17:43
To be clear, this won't permanently censor these transactions either, but because not everyone is going to be sufficiently intimidated. But it will delay them more than in the scenario where those miners only exclude things from their own blocks. And definitely delay them more than can be achieved with just policy, even if 90% of nodes used these filters.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 06:13:49
I should also emphasise the word "might", in contrast to the current proposals which certainly don't work.
The goal of the filter people is to censor OP_RETURN and inscriptions specifically. They have no rational basis for this, as you explained, but I'm just taking this goal at face value.
Without a consensus change it's impossible to stop the transactions from going through eventually, but you could try intimating miners into self-censorship. We know from human societies that a fairly small group of people can control a very large group at fairly low cost. A key ingredient seems to be to disproportionately punish offenders to set an example.
So if you can gather a few percent of hash rate that enforces these arbitrary filters through reorgs (N deep, depending on budget), some pools will experience noticeable losses. This then encourages them to be on the safe side and use these filters. Bitcoin Core might then have to adopt similar rules in order to produce blocks that are safe.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-02 06:01:59
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 17:39:57
How convenient that you don't have to read anything!
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 17:24:49
https://img.sprovoost.nl/c3523912bc232cb58b308df5fcd0ebac658d5e346e97abc21ed8cd5d59c6f71b.png
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqs8329mkwstddu2tvqsjntstaelc5z2nanltan4fgazqhv449at6cqhjjpg0
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 17:21:27
* met
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 17:21:11
The pull request links to a mailinglist post that explains all of this. You're not required to read it, but this "burden of proof" has been more than bet. On the flip side, those who oppose the pull request have not raised a single technically valid argument. And rather than just running Knots, many of them choose to harass developers and frustrate the Github repo.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 13:54:49
I also think that if you explore technical solutions that might _actually work_ (though also require people to spend their own money), rather than the current and proposed feel good settings, you quickly end up attacking the heart of censorship resistance.
nostr.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqsyhn5s36xyw7rz602423vaz3f75wtxvxu6m7tfpnsg9vpmczqsa9cqxshlf
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 13:40:56
I'm happy to give nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg some artistic license here. It's also worth considering that the people who advocate for filters do not have a clearly articulated position. That includes a lack of clarity about how far they're willing to go. Is the line really at automatic updates? Just because nobody said it out loud? The arguments in favour of filtering seem to vary by who you ask. So that means any attempt at summarising the position can be interpreted as a straw man by someone who has a slightly different position that the other person.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 12:04:13
"Life changing" - anonymous person who first learned about this
https://lornajane.net/posts/2011/navigating-bash-history-with-ctrlr
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 08:32:32
* before the release is even out
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-05-01 08:32:02
You can't change consensus on a whim. Standardness filters don't work. But even if they did, Bitcoin Core does a release once every six months and people can take years to upgrade. Spammers can adjust because the release is even out. So for all intends and purposes these filters are static.
Now you add a privileged public key to each that accepts new filters in real time. Then they wouldn't be static. And then OFAC asks for the corresponding private key.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:53:30
Yes please, at least with sigops there's some serious skin in the game if you overestimate your own skill: https://bitcoinexplainedpodcast.com/@nado/episodes/bitcoin-explained-76-stamps-and-the-invalid-block-caused-by-it
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:52:13
Additionally, for each of these topics there is / was at least one well respected developer very fanatic but (imo) misguided about it. That's pretty much the same dynamic as the "blah blah medical doctor says establishment is hiding miracle cure".
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:50:12
Because they're obviously hard to understand, so people are reluctant to immediately have strong opinions about it. The problem with things like the block size, op return and RBF is that they're deceptively simple. People don't feel like they need to spend a bunch of time reading up on the topic to form an opinion. Combine that with "influencers" to up the emotional ante and you have a recipe for drama.
It's a very similar dynamic as with bike shedding.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:38:00
> I don't understand how smart technical people believe [X]
Unfortunately this is completely normal human behaviour (which I don't pretend to be immune for, but I try).
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:36:28
Did you read the mailinglist thread where this was explained? https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAAANnUy08NBOq3B++80Rpna2qkD6NJV9RdV9v0Oi8c3G8eq_4g@mail.gmail.com/T/#mb13230a0c1c39b82b74f928791726d6a254063a4
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:35:00
Meant to link to a later post in that thread: nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqsyhn5s36xyw7rz602423vaz3f75wtxvxu6m7tfpnsg9vpmczqsa9cqxshlf
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 18:33:41
It's not a strawman. Static content filters do not mitigate spam on the blockchain at all.
To continue the police analogy, to reduce spam you need actual deterrence in the form of very serious real cost. Such cost should ideally be imposed on the spammer or on the miner that facilitates the spammer. The former would require KYC. The latter can be done. But be careful what you wish for.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqsxf0td3urgpp95yzszh9y9ewhyxz2eggnfnrzg856wl6xk6nxf7gslakzjv
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 17:05:00
Nobody owns the project, you can simply fork it, and enforce your own views.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 17:03:12
Paid volunteers are a thing. Especially if you consider the opportunity cost of not working for Google.
From the point of view of a user it doesn't matter if a developer is working from savings, government welfare, or hired by a benevolent rich Bitcoiner. Users are not customers of the developers. There's no fiduciary duty. They don't get to make demands. You would treat them exactly as you would a volunteer in the more narrow sense of an unpaid volunteer.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 16:57:24
The most effective way to encourage significant censorship by all miners is to credibly threaten them with reorgs if they include bad things. Needless to say, that would set terrible precedent and probably be the actual end of Bitcoin.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpp59a0hkv5ecm45nrckvmu7pnk0sukssvly33u3wwzquy4v037hcqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8xurjdamx7mmnwshxump0qqs9eheccak37u06hr85xgn4atlxp4cexx50yt2m0n6p2h4u9yr86ggy69hdj
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 16:55:22
Interesting idea, could stimulate people to use Stratum v2 / DATUM without having to run a fork of Bitcoin Core:
> While discussing this here it does occur to me that there is a different line of compromise which might make more sense-- Bitcoin Core conflates relay policy and mining policy. The historical reason for this is that they should match or vaguely bad things happen. But in case where there is a dispute over policy it makes more sense for mining to be the more restrictive of the two, because the negative effects largely come from miners including txn nodes weren't expecting. So maybe it would make sense to change the option to be one that only changed mining policy. At least as mining policy it has a real effect (assuming you're mining!) -- I'm not sure, this is just an off the cuff thought.
Though this also sounds like an implementation headache, and it's still ultimately a placebo. Since this would only be used by tiny miners, the thing they don't like will go in the next block.
From that same thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/comment/mprj4tv/?context=3
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 16:48:42
So is this point from a followup:
> Sometimes developers have left in options to silence disputes from people in the sense of "look if there is an option it will have no effect because virtually no one will set it, and the people committed to this argument can feel that they won, that they did something, but it's really just a placebo". It's expedient but arguably it's not particularly respectful. Especially in a case like this where even if virtually everyone set the option it still wouldn't have the intended effect.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 16:42:40
> If development were primarily about choice the developers ought to instead just ship a copy of GCC: there tada, you get all the choices, write your own node. :)
/u/nullc
Jokes aside, it's a good post.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/bitcoin_cores_github_mods_have_been_banning_users/mpou6xb/
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 14:09:23
Indeed, and also there's really no need to directly respond to someone who insults you.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 14:06:19
Bitcoin users are not paying customers of Bitcoin developers. It's not the same kind of relationship. As Craig Wright found out.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 14:04:03
It's still a volunteer effort in the sense that users are not paying customers.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 13:53:20
Dutch hipster bank #Bunq just added support for buying and selling crypto in collaboration with Kraken. There seems to be no way to withdraw coins, which not even their FAQ seems worth mentioning. It says something about the "crypto" market in general that any company thinks they get away with that.
https://together.bunq.com/d/61673-bunq-crypto
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 08:17:53
Packs of wolves?
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 08:17:29
Indeed, if you don't have enough inbound liquidity, you're just not spending enough :-)
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 08:12:52
My first impression of Bitcoin Core, during the blocksize wars, was also that of arrogance. It's an unfortunate side-effect of people losing patience when having to re-explain something a hundred times. Time they're not spending on writing code, and energy they're losing to remain motivated to write code.
The project is run by volunteers who do not have time, and should not waste time, for maintaining useless functionality. Having people in the project that are (somewhat) comfortable in delivering such bad news is extremely important. I've been on the receiving end of that too internally.
You do not want Bitcoin Core to be a please-everyone kind of project. That's a recipe for unmaintainable code and really bad bugs down the line.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqwafhr84szpt6dlwcxz9tvntkp9y0a9gaq66cxx8afp5see7u93rqyv8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99uq3vamnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qqsx0pehy50ydcg2e8q0djcv05h2ylrjeaapruvejszlj87dkyjf7zcr8na9k
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 08:03:23
Always great when stuff gets merged after two years, especially after a few months I tend to forget what my code is doing. Shout out to Daniela Brozzoni for the diagram.
https://img.sprovoost.nl/cf5d180b52b266f4fbddb8bd666e00afe418f618f2cde84f3149da06793faa06.jpeg
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpamvs5te0hrehvy2la54am0l23qehs653dsyczpxhfddzssgvfe3qytkummnw3ez66tyvgaz7tmrv93ksefdwfjkccteqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qpqjyq5ya7h5v26kgjhlgujdye4xe354jsavg2kas03j73s6hhagq0qkqjsn9
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 07:57:44
Sorry, but it's time to move to bolt12 and BIP352.
https://img.sprovoost.nl/a2272fe3e3ef875e732b1bdfe194634a5d22884e74603d83e946840795190276.png
Ironically since I replaced my self-custodial BTCPay based zap setup to LNBits, I do still rely on LNURL. Happy to try a bolt12 based self-sovereign setup when there's a spec.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-30 07:10:51
Leuk geprobeerd though: https://www.accountancyvanmorgen.nl/2025/04/29/hoge-raad-bevestigt-cryptovaluta-in-box-3/ #box3
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 11:48:07
You already have the followers, which I suspect any discovery algorithm takes into account.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 11:23:39
What makes you believe that your success on Twitter is due to their discovery algorithm? And which version of it? Maybe you just got lucky there, or as others point out, put in more (audience targeted) effort and time.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 11:19:27
Speaking of frequent sources of drama that deter many people from seriously looking at these proposals.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 11:17:38
My main concern with moderation is that it can drag culture war stuff into a project. But I think the moderation process is transparent enough to keep an eye on that.
Still need to decide if I'm going to do Drama Mondays and not go anywhere this stuff on other days. Like today.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 11:13:25
> without warning/notice
The whole thread was full of warnings. Warnings don't have to be individually tailored. Moderators are often developers too and have better things to do with their time than to give a non-contributor extreme benefit of doubt. Or even to have rigorous due process. Every second these people have to waste on this nonsense is time they're not fixing the next CVE.
-
@ 3ba9b8cf:73ee1623
2025-04-29 10:51:46
So since stupid drama is out now, we're can finally get CTV+CSFS done, right??
-
@ 3d2e5150:8d51d594
2025-04-29 09:59:52
Honestly incredibly excited that Bitcoin Core folks are finally more strictly creating an environment where contributors can focus on code rather than letting things get bogged down in stupid drama. This is incredible news for Bitcoin.
-
@ 3ba9b8cf:73ee1623
2025-04-29 09:32:34
Thank you for the response.
Re Citrea. While they might be further along, it's still far from the usual rigid requirement, and certainly not an operational product.
This just makes the whole reference to and argument for Citrea in the OP mailing list incredibly weak (and dangerous imho)
Re: GitHub
First, I disagree that this qualifies already as "harassment". It's a valid, albeit dissenting argument, which should be able to be presented at the main stage.
Second, resorting to fine print bureaucract arguments for blocking ("Oh you should not have discussed this here's but in the line over there") makes Core look incredibly weak and insecure. Especially without warning/notice.
You must see that.
This is not the way trustworthy stewardship of a critical FOSS project looks like.
Even benevolent dictators must be benevolent to not lose support from Us the People.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:54:10
Do you really want to play the censorship victim card?
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/1cpavfc/roger_ver_fights_against_censorship_and_believes/
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:40:50
* The former requires broad consensus
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:39:14
Citrea is much further along than a whitepaper.
The limits were on the verge of being dropped two years ago because inscriptions made them useless. That change was only held back by the argument that there's a small range of sizes where OP_RETURN is cheaper.
That was never a strong argument, so yes, a single example like Citrea was plenty to dismiss that last remaining argument.
I explained all that in my mailinglist post, feel free to read it.
Consensus changes like CTV is totally different from standardness. The latter requires broad consensus, because the consequence of inconsistent enforcement are catastrophic, etc.
Modetating harassers is perfectly legitimate. His concern about a conflict of interest was absolutely spurious here. It's also been stated multiple times that discussions about standardness should be had on the mailinglist, not in the pull request.
Pretending to be a censorship victim is the oldest trick in the book.
-
@ 0f28196c:52e926de
2025-04-29 08:37:36
I honestly just do not see how that is relevant.
And even more the proportions do not transfer.
I mean how is it not obvious that the reason for this is lack of discovery algorithm? It is 500 vs 1.
-
@ 3ba9b8cf:73ee1623
2025-04-29 08:27:35
Citrea publishes some whitepaper(!), for a bridge that would benefit from relaxed OP_RETURN limits.
Immediately everybody at Core: "yeah let's DROP the limits - they're useless anyway. LFG 🚀"
All the while other major changes (e.g. CTV) there's years of filibuster: Where is your signet implementation? Where is your documented user demand? Where is the documented consensus? etc etc etc
[Ironically, something like CTV would have done away with the interactive presigning ceremonies that particularly hinder 2way pegs such as said Citrea's bridge]
You see the point why people are confused by how Core is handling that, don't you???
Besides, blocking dissenting voices from GH for the slightest of disagreements is absolutely disgusting 👎
This may break the straw for many ppl
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:13:58
And specifically to Nostr, discoverability is quite low. Not as bad as with podcasts though :-)
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:12:17
Cross-posting without tailoring to the platform often doesn't work well. Someone might be big on Youtube and non-existent on X.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:09:40
Give the man more followers!
nostr:note1kphydjtptj2wycuz8g7qnqjzgtx9ng76gus2r2d9cmt34yyydqgqa7ltt8
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:06:43
Sorry, I should have split that reply. The first part was an answer to your question, the last bit referred to Bitcoin Mechanic, who should know better which forums are appropriate for which concerns.
-
@ 8685ebef:58f8faf8
2025-04-29 08:04:08
Unless those leaked nudes are on the blockchain :-(
-
@ e967e1cf:fe6077e2
2025-04-29 07:49:39
Yeah, one of those "deleted" blockchains is ETC.
With other words, deleting a blockchain is "wishful thinking" or "quite unlikely" (to avoid saying "impossible")
It's probably easier to remove leaked nudes from the internet
-
@ 0f28196c:52e926de
2025-04-29 07:32:34
NOSTR really sucks for me. https://blossom.primal.net/0df2f4c91e9df32a4ea2e93b6e1dbadf0b7ac474de2474eb85def5eba9b9cb99.jpg
-
@ 55f573b6:be4aa21b
2025-04-29 07:03:21
I wasn't harassing anyone. I just asked a question.
Thanks for answering.