You should read our 2018 article on "Competing with Bitcoin Core" Running Knots is not an effective way to say "fuck off Coretards", since both Knots and Core were largely written by the same people This is very similar to the desire of the large blockers to "fire Core" in
@BitMEXResearch May not be effective, but it seems the most efficient. Rewriting Bitcoin nodes from absolute scratch, reaching the same level of review and the same experience, while also avoiding consensus failures in a system with no formal specs, would be certainly more effective, but so
@giacomozucco > when the goal is just to send some people to fuck off Pretty ironic and perverse goal if at the same time, one wants to run code they wrote. Could also put a tag "Fuck Coretards" in the Bitcoin Core version header. That is what it feels like to me, somewhat comical. Remember,
@BitMEXResearch Most of the code is not written by the people who the message is targeted to. Most of the reasons the message exists has little to do with the code itself.
@giacomozucco > Most of the code is not written by the people who the message is targeted to. Most of the reasons the message exists has little to do with the code itself Well I guess I don't know much about the non code reasons or who the individual targets are. Gloria seems a target, yet
@BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco i'm pretty sure most of the "hate" is from people who can't code, never looked at the code, couldn't read it if they did, never talked to the mainline developers, don't understand the comp sci and information theory limits, 2nd and 3rd side effects, etc. but you know "rage on".
@adam3us @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Yes- who is using Bitcoin? More coders or non-coders? It's this approach of Dr Back's that feels closer to how he'd run one of his own companies than how one should contribute to a collaboration network. This attitude makes me question motive & intent so it's safer to distance.
@jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco it's mostly non comp sci people, but you don't have to be a comp-sci ubergeek to understand. coders are a minority about 0.05% (~50m). people who understand in reasonable detail perhaps 1% of that (500k) and enough to usefully argue about tradeoffs probably 1% of that (5k)?
@jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco hence all the circular arguing. people just need to communicate and calm down. we all care about keeping bitcoin hard money focused, the bitcoin mission. bitcoin is a new hope for humanity, and we must preserve it for future generations.
@adam3us @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco This is the problem in a nutshell though- It's a code vs conduct situation, ...where the majority understand conduct before they do the code. Is a "Multi-Nodal World" one where Bitcoin thrives or dies?
@jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco everyone understands we don't want spam, developers have been fighting this nuisance since 2010. getting angry doesn't help inform low level changes that are focused on continuing that fight. they're misinterpreting the low level details into being "pro-spam" which is wrong.
@adam3us @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco The "low level detail" of blowing out OP_RETURN from 83 to 100,000 is, without a doubt, "pro-spam." There is no misinterpreting the intent of this code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bit...
@satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco no it's not, you are mis-intepreting. IMO it would've been socially smarter to limit to 160b or 256b or something which is similar sized to an average transaction. the argument for > this is weaker and is relative to inscriptions. even luke agrees big op returns wont be used.
@adam3us @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Hmm the tautological purpose of uncapping OP_RETURN is to encourage/permit arbitrary data. We can't possibly infer any other intent imo. But obviously you're right it would have been smarter to increase slowly. Unlike core, you at least know how to boil frogs.
@satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco i just want to stop spam, and misuse that makes it hard to run nodes. and the increase in op return is to fix the mal-incentive bug to create fake pubkeys, which is bad for nodes.
@adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco This is such utter, illogical bullshit. You fool fewer people with it every time you spew it. Stop already.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Hi Nick, hope you respond to this. Currently, a malicious anonymous miner running core v30 could mine a block with illegal (CSAM) content (larger files) in the block and all the nodes (regardless running knots or core) will accept the block as valid? Right?
@zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco If they did so, there would be hundreds of jurisdictions chomping at the bit to prosecute them, and thousands of nodes chomping at the bit to sue them. Incentives.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Jurisdictions can’t be trusted. Epstein files are still not out. Bad actors could be law enforcement who knows. I am seriously worried about bitcoin. This is our last chance. We won’t get another satoshi to create something like this and stay anonymous. What else can we do?
@zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco The imperfect solutions I described are far better than no solution. Black pilling is not a solution.
@NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco The only legally safe approach is to stop running a full node then. Pruned node only and having a full node will become as rare as running a Tor exit node.
@bar_dictum @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco That's a horrible outcome that cripples Bitcoin decentralization. It is what we are trying to avoid.
@NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Agree, it would be a disaster. But what solution is there to prevent miners including transactions in blocks?
@bar_dictum @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco Read the thread moron.
@NickSzabo4 @bar_dictum @zamir591582 @adam3us @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @giacomozucco lol you can lead a horse to water..
@satflation @NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch I understand the argument. But the legal route described only happens after the fact - it doesn’t explain how the chain gets fully reorged after the courts and governments take action against a miner. And it makes the government the final arbiter of transactions.
@bar_dictum @satflation @NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch you don't want to invite establishment censorship, or call on courts to arbitrate bitcoin transactions. that way lies failure. possibly a bias of the legal mind to reach for that kind of mess.
@adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch You don't understand the threat environment, and again fail with logic. If you don't want courts to arbitrate transactions, then the transaction need to be as narrow in legal scope as possible -- as far from arbitrary in content as possible. Whether or not you want the law, the
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Adam was blissfully unaware until yesterday that Marathon does active content moderation of the txs they accept out of band with Slipstream. https://x.com/oomahq/status/19...
@oomahq @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Not only that, Marathon here is essentially threatening to sue the !$# out of anyone who submits copyrighted or objectionable material via Slipstream. They presumably know that they in turn would get sued, albeit it's far from clear that they've been properly advise on the legal
@NickSzabo4 @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch the risks are old topics hashed out on cypherpunks list, and also about hard won protective precedents arising from prior p2p systems, and internet freedoms. i am even the author of two p2p sytems, and exit node operator of 5 or more p2p systems i think (excluding bitcoin nodes)
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch i’ve personally put thousands of images on bitcoin using inscriptions. you can easily put 400kb images on bitcoin today with readily-available tools. 4x bigger than you can fit in an opreturn i haven’t seen a single explanation from you on how you think opreturn widens the legal
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Narrowing attack surfaces as much as humanly possible is something I've come to deeply appreciate about the original Cypherpunk money movement It's amazing to have your takes back on Twitter @NickSzabo4
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch so, more potential as being an attack vector by civil litigation threat?
@NickSzabo4 @mattkratter @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Gotta be retarder to think the law is gonna do anything against the most secure audit notarization in global history.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch there has always been an enormous amount of non-financial data on Bitcoin across all versions The intention of a non-UTXO bearing opcode has always been to quarantine this certainly we shouldn't be concerning ourselves too much with spam because if Bitcoin can be taken down
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch If miners are ever subject to standards they must suffer loss by relocating. Thus noncompliance or centralization is inevitable. Likely block building must be separated from mining. ETH is reducing validator requirements to phones and builders are separate.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Welcome back. There are more than 105M inscriptions. This is nothing new. You’re falling for propaganda
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch It is crazy people seem not realize that politicians and law makers don't give a single carp about computer science logic. They live in the domain of abstractions, demagogy, state control and machiavellianism.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Wasn’t aware of this! 🙏 Considering the asset class is there sufficient case law & judicial precedent at the Federal levels?
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch I agree, why would btc unnecessarily make itself censored by a feature that isn't even required for operation. The negatives of v30 outweigh the positives.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Nick Szabo is sounds like satoshi on this thread, is he satoshi?
@NickSzabo4 @BitcoinHealix @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch There must be dirt on Adam to behave this way now.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Thank you Nick for your expertise in the wild/real world https://x.com/Bitcoinapolis55/...
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Adam and Nick, it's best you guys pick up the phone and talk through and come to a shared conclusion. This public spat between two iconic Bitcoin founders is damaging to bitcoin. Now.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch I hope the two of you can get on a call and discuss and understand each other, the platform here is not conducive to friendly disagreement.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch they are killing bitcoin neutrality and social scalability.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch If your threat model is American courts, lmao. Bitcoiners did worse to China when the hashrate was there, flagging multiple state subversion issues. In the end none of that mattered, and it was barely mentioned in Liu He's omnibus prononucement, and BTC is stronger anyways
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch The law isn't fixed, it can be changed to accommodate Bitcoin. Else Bitcoin (users) could leave your country, or go underground. Bitcoin doesn't need your country, however great it may seem to you. That is how Bitcoin has dealt with local law until now.
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Is there any response where Nick doesnt 10x ratio Adam?
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch Irony in Bitcoin: Large OP_RETURN for arbitrary data forces miners to inspect transactions for CSAM/legal risks, leading to off-chain blacklists and collusion. Result? A censorship engine that destroys permissionlessness. Self-defeating?
@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @bar_dictum @satflation @zamir591582 @jabulanijakes @BitMEXResearch @grok why don’t all these people that want to change the Bitcoin protocol instead of arguing with each other don’t leave the Bitcoin network and start their own?