|
Title: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: mindrust on October 25, 2025, 05:24:44 PM https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/10/25/UmNWZj.png
https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1980891636197740733 Interesting developments. Just when we thought Luke became a train wreck after J-Lopp wiped the floors with him, he receives help from one of the OG's of bitcoin. (some still believe Nick Szabo is Satoshi Nakamoto btw.) I thought running Knots wasn't going to make a difference. What's with this NS guy? Don't he know that? a- it makes a difference and that's why he recommends it b- ns is full of shit and he doesn't know crap about this Place your bets. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 25, 2025, 05:42:35 PM I miss the days when bitcoiners were all about anarchy and resisting government intervention with free software. We used to write code to evade government. Now our concern is how hostile governments will be with Core 30.
Someone with a background in the law, please explain to me what difference does it make whether the material you propagate is continuous, or split in different chunks? Because that's the core of the issue, as far as I can tell. Arbitrary data could already be included in a host variety of ways, and in fact it already is cheaper to do in chunks than in OP_RETURN, as you get segwit discount. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: alani123 on October 25, 2025, 05:44:35 PM What had caused Nick Szabo to abandon BTC in the first place? I don't recall.
I found a New Yorker article saying back in 2015 he opposed bitcoin XT's block size expansion. This was a favourite proposed solution back then. https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Cricktor on October 25, 2025, 06:08:53 PM I don't care if this is the "real" Nick Szabo or just someone who managed to get the worth-a-shit "verified" indicator at some (a)social media platform. Anyway, that's not the main topic here.
No idea why this Nick shills Knots. Knots may refuse to accept and/or relay transactions that don't fit in its view of Bitcoin purity, but Knots still has to accept valid blocks and those can still contain stuff that Knots otherwise won't let into its mempool. I get the argument when there were a whole lot more Knots nodes, that undesired content might have a hard time to reach miner's mempools. But frankly does anybody want to have a large majority of nodes to be run by Knots, a node software maintained basically by one dude who is in one way or another quite "special" (I could use other words, but lets play nice.) Sorry... I pass! Doesn't make sense to me to promote Knots as the Bitcoin savior. Laughable! Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Ambatman on October 25, 2025, 06:24:54 PM I thought running Knots wasn't going to make a difference. What's with this NS guy? Don't he know that? a- it makes a difference and that's why he recommends it b- ns is full of shit and he doesn't know crap about this Place your bets. If it's not relayed by nodes it wouldn't be seen by miners except they are presented to the miner directly. But the issue is spammers adapt.They can use fake Pubkeys in Taproot output by taking advantage of the flexibility of taproot. In the end wouldn't change anything once a miner choose to add it to a block They would be validated and stored as it doesn't go against the consensus rule. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Satofan44 on October 25, 2025, 07:06:22 PM You mean Nick Szabo, the Ethereum advisor? Why should anyone listen to him? It is time to stop the appealing to authority figures. The shitcoin that he supports has even fewer limits and even more CSAM data in it. He has no point here.
a- it makes a difference and that's why he recommends it Reread the threads on OP_RETURN, starting with this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559215 and then this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562256.0. It makes zero difference if you run Knots or not.b- ns is full of shit and he doesn't know crap about this If it's not relayed by nodes it wouldn't be seen by miners except they are presented to the miner directly. The relay of transactions is not an argument at all, the other side is just retarded. Miners already offer public tools where you can directly submit these transactions and there are private channels for submission too. If I can do this, a motivated attacker can do it as well. But the issue is spammers adapt.They can use fake Pubkeys in Taproot output by taking advantage of the flexibility of taproot. Someone with a background in the law, please explain to me what difference does it make whether the material you propagate is continuous, or split in different chunks? Because that's the core of the issue, as far as I can tell. Arbitrary data could already be included in a host variety of ways, and in fact it already is cheaper to do in chunks than in OP_RETURN, as you get segwit discount. This would be a very dumb argument. The data is not stored in a way that is readable by default, or easily readable. So whether it is continuous or in chunks, you have to really want to read it in the right way to be able to see it. It is not like I can just open my blocks folder and the CSAM data and malware is staring me in the face. However, they sure like to exaggerate like this is the case. Furthermore, chunks vs continuous is a pretty stupid argument. The implication from this is that all a pedophile needs to do is split his content locally into chunks and the issue stops right then and there? No more arrests then, they found a solution. ::) I miss the days when bitcoiners were all about anarchy and resisting government intervention with free software. We used to write code to evade government. Now our concern is how hostile governments will be with Core 30. When every idiot and his grandma has an opinion on the physics of a quantum computer this is what you get. This is also a case example of why decentralized governance is a very bad style of governing. Luckily in the case of Bitcoin the governance style is pretty vague and as such it is very difficult to subvert. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: alani123 on October 25, 2025, 07:15:41 PM I don't care if this is the "real" Nick Szabo or just someone who managed to get the worth-a-shit "verified" indicator at some (a)social media platform. Anyway, that's not the main topic here. Running a different kind of node other than Core is just symbolic.No idea why this Nick shills Knots. Knots may refuse to accept and/or relay transactions that don't fit in its view of Bitcoin purity, but Knots still has to accept valid blocks and those can still contain stuff that Knots otherwise won't let into its mempool. I get the argument when there were a whole lot more Knots nodes, that undesired content might have a hard time to reach miner's mempools. But frankly does anybody want to have a large majority of nodes to be run by Knots, a node software maintained basically by one dude who is in one way or another quite "special" (I could use other words, but lets play nice.) Sorry... I pass! Doesn't make sense to me to promote Knots as the Bitcoin savior. Laughable! In 2015 there were several types of non-core nodes spun up, with many even supporting a hard-fork enabled block-size increase. Of course miners kept mining based on rules they knew the majority of other MINERS would accept. If you're running a non mining node, your politics don't really have an impact. Hell even rules set out by developers don't really matter. Because if miners chose to ignore a certain Core rule it means the users will just have to accept it. And what if you run a node that outright refuses to accept blocks with inscriptions and "arbitrary data" when miners are ok to put these in blocks and accept to build on such blocks? You'll be alone. These days miners have their own permission network of nodes anyway. They don't really care to peer with you for better propagation because big pools network with each other and even run "boosters" for transactions they'll be paid to put in their blocks. That's why Luke created OCEAN, a pool where the proposed rules for mining blocks exclude inscriptions, ordinals and anything he perceives as arbitrary data. If you want to disobey bitcoin Core rules, you don't just need to showcase your power in nodes, you need to show you're capable of changing things in terms of hashrate. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on October 25, 2025, 08:39:48 PM Quote What's with this NS guy? Nothing Special, nothing new. It is just his opinion. So, as usual, you don't have to follow his recommendations, when it comes to the client you should run. But also, as usual, people like that often raise some valid points, and even if you decide, that you should run Core, then you should look at his arguments in the way they are.Quote Running a node where one cannot selectively delete unacceptable content without wider functional disruption There are two issues here: first, running Knots does not allow you to remove more block or transaction data, than Core, without causing the same disruption (try to do Initial Blockchain Download from another Knots node, that is pruned). And second: there are pruned Core nodes, that "selectively delete unacceptable content", by discarding everything below 288 last blocks, and not relaying that to the network at all.Quote Nodes on blockchains that (...) discourage arbitrary content, are far less risky to run than nodes on blockchains that encourage arbitrary content. Again, at least two problems here: first, that Knots does not "discourage arbitrary content". It would do so, if it would be hard, or impossible, to download past transactions with JPEGs in plaintext. As long as they are needed for IBD, Knots is not better here than Core. And second, that OP_RETURN is way better, than doing for example 1-of-460 multisig, which is non-standard, but which would be accepted by all Knots nodes, if some mining pool would decide to include it: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/YO8ZwnG_ISs/m/nRDyiy6LAAAJQuote a- it makes a difference and that's why he recommends it Rather "b" than "a", but there are some points worth considering. For example "pruning". And "doing IBD, without having all transactions in plaintext". As long as IBD in Knots requires getting all spammy transactions, their filters have no effect. If they don't understand it, then it is their problem.b- ns is full of shit and he doesn't know crap about this Quote what difference does it make whether the material you propagate is continuous, or split in different chunks? There is no difference, because you can make it continuous, by just spending coins from bc1sw50qgdz25j (https://mempool.space/pl/address/bc1sw50qgdz25j), and start making continuous 4 MB data pushes. What then?Quote Because that's the core of the issue, as far as I can tell. It is not, because of the above. Check it on regtest, if you are not convinced, that making continuous data pushes is consensus-valid, which means, that even if it is non-standard now, some mining pools may start accepting it at any moment. And then, the block size limit is the only limit, that will block the chunks from being bigger than 4 MB.Quote Arbitrary data could already be included in a host variety of ways, and in fact it already is cheaper to do in chunks than in OP_RETURN, as you get segwit discount. The method above is the cheapest, because you have a Segwit discount, and you have a single chunk. It is only a matter of time, as some spammy mining pools will get there.Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 25, 2025, 09:40:25 PM Quote a- it makes a difference and that's why he recommends it Rather "b" than "a"b- ns is full of shit and he doesn't know crap about this Quote It is not, because of the above. I mean it is the core of the issue, from the perspective of the law. I think Szabo's position is that nodes do not carry the same legal responsibility if they're actively supporting the propagation of such material by running software that openly accepts it. However, pre-30 nodes also "support" that propagation, as they will accept valid blocks with the material. Therefore, I'm really not sure what the point in his statement is. Somehow that software legality is a "spectrum"?Quote bc1sw50qgdz25j How can you spend coins from this address?Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on October 25, 2025, 09:54:18 PM Quote How can you spend coins from this address? They are unconditionally valid. Coins from future Segwit versions are spendable now. Future soft-forks can say for example: "only coins meeting these conditions can be spent". So, today, you can just spend them like bc1pfeessrawgf (https://mempool.space/address/bc1pfeessrawgf). However, if you include any witness stack push, then it will also be valid. It may be non-standard, but valid.And also, that's why every soft-fork has some "confiscatory surface", because maybe, someone, somewhere, used addresses like that, for some unknown purpose. However, this is why standardness rules are there: to assume, that users made only standard transactions, and to allow for the future soft-forks to invalidate "unconditional coin spends" into "you need to satisfy these rules" spends. Then, old nodes assume these coins are valid, and new nodes enforce new restrictions on top of that. I wonder, if I should include some regtest example, or if you want to take your time, and figure it out. Edit: Spammers will get there soon anyway, so let's go: Code: decodescript 51024e73 Code: generateblock "bcrt1pfeesnyr2tx" '["02000000011468870ca9ffacda7d96cc69cafdc7caa0516a91e9dfabd8ca382587d7fc1c7a0000000000fdffffff028207000000000000046002751e30ea052a010000000451024e7300000000","0200000002e6e168946b9b227ea12a7477d137202679b8369e6d4207b24fef01bb4faa5bee0000000000fdffffffe6e168946b9b227ea12a7477d137202679b8369e6d4207b24fef01bb4faa5bee0100000000fdffffff0197f1052a010000000451024e7300000000"]' Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Quickseller on October 25, 2025, 10:34:49 PM I don't care if this is the "real" Nick Szabo or just someone who managed to get the worth-a-shit "verified" indicator at some (a)social media platform. Anyway, that's not the main topic here I'm not sure if that is him or not. But nowadays, the blue 'verified' checkmark means whoever is behind the account is paying for a 'premium' subscription service, and for most platforms, the user's identity has not been verified, although there are rules against impersonating people. I haven't been following the 'knots' debate closely, so I don't know all the details. It seems like the core/knots debate primarily stems from what default settings to use on your full node. Bitcoin knots, by default will not accept certain valid transactions into its mempool, and will not rely these transactions. Knots will, however, accepts blocks that contain these valid transactions. In practice, it seems like someone running bitcoin knots will potentially have to validate more transactions for each block they receive, which, at the margin, I think is not optimal. I think it makes little sense to reject transactions in your mempool that are likely to be included in a block in the near future. I think if there are many nodes that engage in this practice, the risk of accepting 0/unconfirmed transactoin goes up because you may be aware of a conflicting transaction if one depends on a transaction that is rejected by knots nodes. It is already risky to accept unconfirmed transactions, but there is no need to make this even riskier. eta/ this is not a technical argument, but there is strong precedent, in the US at least, for operators of bitcoin full nodes. The specifics are off topic here, but I don't think potential legal liability is a valid argument to delete arbitrary data. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: alani123 on October 25, 2025, 11:42:54 PM This certainly is the real Nick Szabo to me. He was always vocal about his opinions at times he viewed as crucial. Although his opinions clearly changed.
Yes he was silent on BTC politics for a very long time but then again people change. Szabo is over 60 now, and by the lookss of his tweets also very vocal about politics, which he usually wasn't vocal about at all. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: ABCbits on October 26, 2025, 08:50:25 AM If it's not relayed by nodes it wouldn't be seen by miners except they are presented to the miner directly. The relay of transactions is not an argument at all, the other side is just retarded. Miners already offer public tools where you can directly submit these transactions and there are private channels for submission too. If I can do this, a motivated attacker can do it as well. But the issue is spammers adapt.They can use fake Pubkeys in Taproot output by taking advantage of the flexibility of taproot. Fair point. But IMO it's worth to mention that, 1. Argument of node wouldn't rely such unconfirmed transaction works if majority use Knots or other full node software with similar behavior. 2. Currently only some miner/mining pool offer to include non-standard TX at additional cost. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Satofan44 on October 26, 2025, 12:01:43 PM If it's not relayed by nodes it wouldn't be seen by miners except they are presented to the miner directly. The relay of transactions is not an argument at all, the other side is just retarded. Miners already offer public tools where you can directly submit these transactions and there are private channels for submission too. If I can do this, a motivated attacker can do it as well. But the issue is spammers adapt.They can use fake Pubkeys in Taproot output by taking advantage of the flexibility of taproot. Fair point. But IMO it's worth to mention that, 1. Argument of node wouldn't rely such unconfirmed transaction works if majority use Knots or other full node software with similar behavior. 2. Currently only some miner/mining pool offer to include non-standard TX at additional cost. At that point they would have just played themselves. To make it worse, if I was such a person I would do it both in OP_RETURN and in other ways that are unprunable so that they have to store the content forever. If a potential attacker is reading, take a note. ;D Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: headingnorth on October 26, 2025, 02:46:44 PM Good for Nick Szabo
Only the Core-tards somehow believe that filtering arbitrary garbage from the network is somehow a form of censorship. That is something I will never understand. These are not bitcoiners. These are clowns who want to turn bitcoin into any other random shitcoin like dogecoin, pepecoin, fartcoin, clowncoin, bozocoin etc so they can be free to upload their pixelated cat, clown and monkey jpegs, spam, malware, pump and dump scams, porn or worse. When Craig Wright is rejoicing this latest release you know something is very wrong. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on October 28, 2025, 05:02:23 AM It's worth mentioning that the argument does not work, otherwise no. :D If 100% of nodes ran Knots, it would still not prevent this. I could submit the transactions to the miners instead. You are basically saying that filters don't work because you can go straight to the miner. But you either don't understand how filters work, or you conveniently stop at contacting the miner directly, as if that was the final step of confirming your transaction. It's not. You need to figure out how filters work. Filters could never stop all of the spam because that would be censorship. And the bitcoin nodes are not capable of censorship, no matter how many filters are stacked up. Filters are meant to be a PITA for spammers and spam miners. They are meant to deincintivise spam. Not censor it. Quote Anyway, there is a 0% chance that under any circumstances all nodes would run Knots. We don't need all the nodes to run Knots. But the more of us run Knots, the more of a pain in the butt we become to spammers. I would rather work towards fighting spam.than do nothing about it and pray that it's somehow going to go away by itself by some magical force. Quote What matters are consensus rules, and they say that this is valid. No need to get a bulldozer to swat flies. Filters and Knots will grow over time as core gradually fades away and spammers will gradually be chased out of the space. We will never stomp out all of them but we can gradually work towards making it harder for them. You need to see my thread on how filters work. Quote In any case we can always fall back to other methods so even a complete consensus removal of OP_RETURN would not do anything. As I said elsewhere, if the filterboys side continues to be stubborn and annoying in their depravity then someone will start putting all kinds of illegal content actively just to prove that they are stupid. This is extremely disingenuous. We are sounding the alarm that the course we are currently on could end up very badly with all sort of filth getting on chain. And you try to blame us for the changes that core is doing? We did nothing for way too long. And the spam only keeps getting worst year after year. It's only a certainty that it's going to end badly if nobody does anything about the situation. I hope we can save bitcoin before it's too late. You are correct in saying that filters are more effective if we all use them. But that is an admittion of sort that core is part of the problem when they refuse to fight spam in any way. I hope that core will eventually realize they need to change their attitude towards spam, or they will keep losing support and nodes..... Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on October 28, 2025, 07:18:11 AM Quote And the bitcoin nodes are not capable of censorship, no matter how many filters are stacked up. All pruned nodes censor everything, that has more than 288 confirmations. And they are not forking the network for some reason. I wonder, why suddenly some people think, that a soft-fork is needed for something, that pruned nodes can do, without any forks at all.Also, there are nodes, which relay no transactions at all, only blocks. Then, they censor everything equally. Quote I would rather work towards fighting spam.than do nothing about it and pray that it's somehow going to go away by itself by some magical force. Then think about doing Initial Blockchain Download, without downloading spammy transactions in plaintext. Because otherwise, the chain will always be spammed.Even if you assume, that 100% of nodes will run Knots, then still: users will simply store their data inside their private keys. And that would be worse, because then, censoring some public keys will be more difficult, if they will be obfuscated. Quote No need to get a bulldozer to swat flies. Do you support the soft-fork? Because it is "a bulldozer", if you compare it to no-forks, which could use ZK-proofs, and handle things in a similar way, as existing pruned nodes are doing it here and now.Quote And you try to blame us for the changes that core is doing? If someone can make door locks better, and destroy all walls in the process, then yes, users have a right to complain, that their doors are useless, if there is no "inside", and if all they can see, is just some military-grade doors, not detached to any walls at all, standing still, in the middle of nowhere, behind destroyed walls.Quote We did nothing for way too long. And now, instead of doing nothing, some real payments from presigned multisig transactions, will be consensus-blocked for a year, leading Knots nodes to be potentially forked into an altcoin. Great, it is only comparable with a quantum confiscation ideas.Also, do you want to buy 100 "knotoshis" per "coretoshi"? Because if Knots will go for a soft-fork, then they will end up in a similar way, as BCH, so the community will be splitted again, and the total supply will double again, from 21 to 42 millions. I wonder, if "knots vs core" pair should be listed somewhere, to see, what whales are going to support. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Quickseller on October 29, 2025, 09:27:37 AM Quote And the bitcoin nodes are not capable of censorship, no matter how many filters are stacked up. All pruned nodes censor everything, that has more than 288 confirmations. And they are not forking the network for some reason. I wonder, why suddenly some people think, that a soft-fork is needed for something, that pruned nodes can do, without any forks at all.Quote Also, there are nodes, which relay no transactions at all, only blocks. Then, they censor everything equally. That is not quite the same thing as what knots does. Someone connecting to a knots node might not know they are not going to receive all valid transactions that are likely to be confirmed in a block from that node. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on October 29, 2025, 09:43:49 AM Quote They are unable to assist with (most of) the downloading of the blockchain when a node first starts up. They are unable to do that now, but they could in the future, if there would exist some implementation, based on ZK-proofs, or other similar things. And that would be much better solution, than making any soft-forks or hard-forks, which are currently discussed. Which is why I am surprised, that the discussion is pushed into forks, where none are needed.Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Quickseller on October 29, 2025, 06:36:28 PM Quote They are unable to assist with (most of) the downloading of the blockchain when a node first starts up. They are unable to do that now, but they could in the future, if there would exist some implementation, based on ZK-proofs, or other similar things. And that would be much better solution, than making any soft-forks or hard-forks, which are currently discussed. Which is why I am surprised, that the discussion is pushed into forks, where none are needed.Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on October 29, 2025, 07:21:26 PM Quote And I am not aware of how this could possibly be implemented without a hard fork. Just by adding a new P2P message. When someone will ask about an old transaction in plaintext, then that node will get "I don't have" response. And through the new P2P message, ZK-proofs, or anything else can be sent. In this way, it will be compatible with existing things, while gradually switching to a new model.By the way, maybe you don't know, but Core developers wrote something called "P2Pv2". So, they changed the whole P2P protocol into a new version. And somehow, it didn't result in any soft-fork or hard-fork, despite that new nodes now communicate in a completely different way, using different messages, than in the old P2P protocol. Also, somehow nodes were able to switch from port 8333 into randomly picked values, without forking the network. Which means, that many changes are possible, it is only a matter of skills, to get there. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: nutildah on November 03, 2025, 03:02:31 AM Yeah maybe its not Nick Szabo. I responded critically to one of his recent tweets - pointing out that a federal government has never shut down a decentralized blockchain before - and then he followed me, lol. The old Nick Szabo would have blocked me right away (he blocked one of my old accounts is how I know).
That is something I will never understand. These are not bitcoiners. These are clowns who want to turn bitcoin into any other random shitcoin like dogecoin, pepecoin, fartcoin, clowncoin, bozocoin etc so they can be free to upload their pixelated cat, clown and monkey jpegs, spam, malware, pump and dump scams, porn or worse. Do you want to understand it? The selling point / intrinsic value of these creations is the fact that they're on Bitcoin and not on another blockchain. So they don't want to turn Bitcoin into a shitcoin. When Craig Wright is rejoicing this latest release you know something is very wrong. Does anyone actually care what he thinks anymore? Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Wind_FURY on November 03, 2025, 02:55:23 PM https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/10/25/UmNWZj.png https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1980891636197740733 That's OK, because no person could actually force another person to run Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots. You merely run what node software you want, and what version of the software you want. Because that gives you freedom and sovereignty over your own coins, THAT'S the way it should be. If Satoshi said you should run "X", you could tell Satoshi "NO". That's Bitcoin. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on November 05, 2025, 04:59:22 AM I miss the days when bitcoiners were all about anarchy and resisting government intervention with free software. We used to write code to evade government. Now our concern is how hostile governments will be with Core 30. That is a fallacy. If you download, and distribute illicit content on your node, that exposes you to legal and moral risks. That's all we are saying. You can ignore the legal aspect, but that still leaves you with the moral risk of hosting and distributing child p**n and other filth on your node, at home, around your children and family. I can imagine governments trying to make running a node illegal without a monetary payment service, and completely failing due to a lack of olpublic support for it. But if they can paint you as a child p**n distribution service? "SWAT that sick mofo right away", the crowds will beg. Quote Someone with a background in the law, please explain to me what difference does it make whether the material you propagate is continuous, or split in different chunks? It is not relevent. Because your cushy position in the USA lends you a situation of privilege. I can assure you in about any country on this planet, including yours, they can entangle you in years of litigations even though they knew from the start they can't win. But I guaranty you, they will have public support. Fell free to argue in court that the child p**n you host and distribute is contiguous or not. Most node runners would likely decide not to risk it. And that is my position too. Quote Because that's the core of the issue, as far as I can tell. Arbitrary data could already be included in a host variety of ways, and in fact it already is cheaper to do in chunks than in OP_RETURN, as you get segwit discount. It's really not that relevent to me at all. What matters to me is that we keep arbitrary data out of bitcoin as much as possible. If the filter is only 1% effective at doing that, I saw work on improving the filter, not dropping it completely. We need less spam, not more. If we allow only cute kitten jpegs, it's only a question of time before far worst stuff makes it on chain. I would rather work towards preventing spam, than have to elect someone to decide of your jpeg is acceptable or not. Over 30% of on chain stuff is not arbitrary data. And it's growing. We need to start fighting against it. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: mindrust on November 05, 2025, 09:40:46 AM https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/10/25/UmNWZj.png https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1980891636197740733 That's OK, because no person could actually force another person to run Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots. You merely run what node software you want, and what version of the software you want. Because that gives you freedom and sovereignty over your own coins, THAT'S the way it should be. If Satoshi said you should run "X", you could tell Satoshi "NO". That's Bitcoin. True. satoshi himself probably wouldn’t even defend bitcoin against bcash or the other attackers as well. He would say something like “It is going to be alright, i trust math, i trust people. People will see the righteous side and the evil side. Or maybe there is no evil at all. There are just actions and reactions. In any way, people don’t need my interference. Bcash says they are real bitcoin? Maybe they are huh, who cares what we call it really? If they want the name, they can take it. I am renaming this project into mitcoin” ;D Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on November 05, 2025, 10:24:42 AM It's really not that relevent to me at all. What matters to me is that we keep arbitrary data out of bitcoin as much as possible. You can't do that. It's a permissionless network, where information is easy to spread but hard to stifle, if that reminds you anything. Arbitrary data can be included into the chain in a host variety of ways, and much cheaper than with OP_RETURN, such as paying to thousand of witness hashes, embedding it into taproot witness as Ordinals do, or even spending from a segwit address (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5563464.msg65967567#msg65967567). You're being psyop-ed that this is an important matter, because Luke is an attention whore who wants to get funded, while you ignore problems in bitcoin that actually need your attention. Bitcoin has always allowed arbitrary data to be included. You're just beating the air. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Wind_FURY on November 06, 2025, 03:19:25 AM That is a fallacy. If you download, and distribute illicit content on your node, that exposes you to legal and moral risks. That's the sort of FUD that the filterbois like to spread to confuse the general public. The people who like to run a Bitcoin node do it for the node itself, not for attempting to access illegal content. But if the person itself wants to access and extract illegal content from the blockchain, THEN he/she is legally liable. The laughable part is when CSAM collectors want to use the blockchain to distribute illegal content, they would need to run their own full nodes because their incentives to do so align with the network. https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/6yxkca3aae7.jpeg Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on November 06, 2025, 07:02:26 AM Quote when CSAM collectors want to use the blockchain to distribute illegal content, they would need to run their own full nodes Why? It is possible to store and process only a subset of the mainnet traffic. If someone cares only about pushing data on-chain, then that person does not need any confirmation, that any coins are "real". Which means, that there is no need for spammers, to have a full UTXO set, to download the whole chain, and to verify everything. Only users, that want to use it as a payment system, need that kind of things. Spammers only care if their traffic is broadcasted further.Quote because their incentives to do so align with the network They don't. Spammers can store only data-pushing transactions, and discard everything else (which would also make everything faster for them, because OP_CHECKSIG verification consumes more resources, than checking some data pushes). If you care about pushing data on-chain, then you don't care, if any coins are real. Which means, that you can just ask random P2P peers about some traffic, and then just feed them with some data. If they will accept it, and broadcast it further, then you don't have to even care, if transactions are confirmed or not. To waste bandwidth, only abusing relay rules is needed (which is easier, since nodes switched from 1 sat/vB to 0.1 sat/vB, because some misconfigured nodes simply switched to zero, and started accepting free transactions, so they can be easily spammed).By the way, I think there will be more "block-explorer users" than "full-node runners", when it comes to spammers. All they care about, is if sites like mempool.space can show them, what they want to see, rather than if their coins are "real". Because if your end goal is to push some data on-chain, then you can use even zero satoshis, to do that. Which means, that it can be done even on testnet3, when the block reward will drop to zero. Because to push data, you don't need any coins. You only need to be a miner, to create zero satoshis out of thin air, and to spend it, while pushing your data on-chain. In testnets, it can be done with just a CPU. On mainnet, there will be probably some pools like MARA, which will accept such things, and confirm them. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on November 11, 2025, 01:32:17 PM That is a fallacy. If you download, and distribute illicit content on your node, that exposes you to legal and moral risks. That's the sort of FUD that the filterbois like to spread to confuse the general public. This is absurd. I was excited for the promise of scaling that Segwit and Taproot offered. If anyone had told me they would be used to turn my node into a file hosting service, I would not have been so exited. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube will allow you to use them as a file storage service but they will filter out illicit content because they don't want the legal and moral exposure of hosting that filth. Neither do I. Quote The people who like to run a Bitcoin node do it for the node itself, not for attempting to access illegal content. People who run a node do so to preserve bitcoin as money and not to be used as a free file hosting service. Quote But if the person itself wants to access and extract illegal content from the blockchain, THEN he/she is legally liable. I don't want your files on my HDD, I don't want to download your files, I don't want to put your files in my mempool, and I don't want to relay it to others. Granted, if it gets confirmed, it will end up on my node. And that adds a moral/legal risk I did not sign up for. Quote The laughable part is when CSAM collectors want to use the blockchain to distribute illegal content, they would need to run their own full nodes because their incentives to do so align with the network. They would not need to run their own node. If core successfully turns bitcoin into a file hosting service, the CSAM collectors will effectively use the 25,000 nodes to host and share their filth for them. Y Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on November 11, 2025, 05:10:54 PM Granted, if it gets confirmed, it will end up on my node. And that adds a moral/legal risk I did not sign up for. Plot twist: you did not sign up for anything. You did not accept any terms and conditions for using bitcoin, because it is permissionless. You simply downloaded wallet software and received bitcoin. And just like you permissionlessly opted-into it, you can opt-out as well, if you feel you're engaging in morally questionable network. Quote I don't want your files on my HDD, I don't want to download your files, I don't want to put your files in my mempool, and I don't want to relay it to others. Putting asides the fact that you can just run a pruned node, the compromise for having a decentralized, permissionless monetary network is that some people do have to use their disk space for other people's transactions, and thus, other people's data. Otherwise, it can't work. Instead of accepting this compromise for the larger benefit of opting out of a morally disastrous monetary system, you're focusing on a non-issue that's being into bitcoin since 2009. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on November 11, 2025, 07:24:09 PM Quote from: BlackHatCoiner Plot twist: you did not sign up for anything. You did not accept any terms and conditions for using bitcoin Is your position so weak that your have to take everything literally in order to disagree with me? No, I did not sign anything notarized, with small print or otherwise. Too bad the phrasing went right over your head. Quote because it is permissionless. Permisssionless money, not permission less file hosting service. Quote You simply downloaded wallet software and received bitcoin. That was once true. Now I don't only receive bitcoin, I also receive, store and relay any sort of file any stranger sees fit to make me host and share on their behalf. Quote And just like you permissionlessly opted-into it, you can opt-out as well, if you feel you're engaging in morally questionable network. That is precisely and exactly my point. Bitcoin needs a large amount of nodes to remain decentralized, especially in the face of an increasingly centralized mining industry. Adding unnecessary moral and/or legal risks to running a node is not condusive to remain decentralized. Quote Putting asides the fact that you can just run a pruned node, Weakening the decentralization of the nodes by deincentivizing people to run a full node is not acceptable. Quote the compromise for having a decentralized, permissionless monetary network is that some people do have to use their disk space for other people's transactions, and thus, other people's data. And thanks to core spamware 30, I now have to store more spam and less monetary transactions. Keeping the existing filters and adding on more filters would be an effective way to greatly reduce the amount of spam and arbitrary data random strangers make me hold and distribute for them. Quote Otherwise, it can't work. Seriously? You are telling me that the only way for bitcoin to work is for us to open the door to any and all random strangers making us host any file for them, no matter how illicit and filthy those files are? You are telling me the only way for bitcoin to work requires that I host and distribute your dick pics and child porn? Quote Instead of accepting this compromise for the larger benefit of opting out of a morally disastrous monetary system, you're focusing on a non-issue that's being into bitcoin since 2009. Pure absolute bullshit! We have been aggressively filtering spam since the start. It's only recently that some of you have decided to actually bend the knee to spammers. Shame on you. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: stwenhao on November 11, 2025, 08:41:34 PM Quote Quote Putting asides the fact that you can just run a pruned node, Weakening the decentralization of the nodes by deincentivizing people to run a full node is not acceptable.Quote Code: prune=550 Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: d5000 on November 12, 2025, 03:42:56 AM I am still waiting for the big spam wave due to Bitcoin Core 30. Current blocks (last blocks, 923231 to 923241) had fees between 0.27 and 1 sat/vbyte.
And the average block size was even slightly larger in early 2025, well before Core 30: https://talkimg.com/images/2025/11/12/UPUxdl.png Source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_block_size Regarding OP_RETURN there also seems to be no clear trend. There was an increase in late August / September (I highlighted the date when that increase started) but that was still way before Core 30: https://talkimg.com/images/2025/11/12/UPU0gT.png Source: https://mainnet.observer/charts/output-opreturn/ If you download, and distribute illicit content on your node, that exposes you to legal and moral risks. The consequence of your argumentation (that OP_RETURN storage is bad and fake public key storage doesn't matter) would be that you'd be happy to distribute illicit content stored on BTC blockchain with OLGA stamps (Stampchain), which are not possible to block with Luke's filters nor with BIP 444.The incentives for the illegal content producers are exactly the same, regardless if they're using OP_RETURN or OLGA stamps. So there is absolutely no moral distinction between both cases. It could even be argued that Knots folks love to talk so much about illegal content that you could bring certain people to really get the idea to use Bitcoin for that purpose. And Luke's filters would have no chance, because they of course would use OLGA stamps or, if still possible, the Taproot method, not OP_RETURN. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on November 12, 2025, 09:20:29 AM I am still waiting for the big spam wave due to Bitcoin Core 30. Anyone who knows how filters operate would know that there would not be a sudden spike in op_return right after core v30 is released. There is still over 90% of the network working with the filter set at 83 bytes. Still effective enought to curb most of the spam in op_return. Just look at the Peter Todd's tx. He had to pay $100 in miner fees to get his virtue signalling retarded op_return tx. A testament to how effective filters are, even with 90% of the network running it. Quote Regarding OP_RETURN there also seems to be no clear trend. There was an increase in late August / September (I highlighted the date when that increase started) but that was still way before Core 30: You are boring me. It was well established that the excuse to blow up the op_return filter would offer a less harmful way to spam the chain, instead of fake pubkeys. All the while even the core devs have said this won't reduce UTXO bloat as existing spammers are not likely to switch to op_return. If the core excuse for the change works, when it works, you would see fewer inscriptions and fewer fake pubkeys as they migrate to op_return. But everyone on both side do not expect this to happen. What core 30 did is facilitate a new use case for spam while doing nothing about previous use cases of spam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the result will be. Quote The consequence of your argumentation (that OP_RETURN storage is bad and fake public key storage doesn't matter) would be that you'd be happy to distribute illicit content stored on BTC blockchain with OLGA stamps (Stampchain), which are not possible to block with Luke's filters nor with BIP 444. :eyeroll: The existing spammers are not switching to op_return and they won't switch to op_return. Even the retard core dev who came up with this stoopit idea has said that they won't switch to op_return. Quote The incentives for the illegal content producers are exactly the same, regardless if they're using OP_RETURN or OLGA stamps. So there is absolutely no moral distinction between both cases. There is an important difference. Up until now, they would have to exploit the system to spam the chain. They had to find exploits with fake pubkeys, segwit, and taproot to spam us. But that is no longer true. Since core 30, we are telling them "Hey, you are no longer an unwelcomed attacker. You now have a use case designed especially for you. Spam is effectively a sanctioned use case in op_return." If/when spam gets worst, it will be your fault, all of you - core 30 dick pic lovers. Quote It could even be argued that Knots folks love to talk so much about illegal content that you could bring certain people to really get the idea to use Bitcoin for that purpose. Nobody warned or invited spammers on BTC and they came anyways. Nobody told child porners to spam BSV when they blew up their own op_return, and they did it anyways. Your idea is as stupid as claiming that crying wolf constitutes an invitation for the wolf to come out and attack. Wolves exist. Child porners exist. Bad actors exist. Trying to pretend they don't exist and blowing up op_return is just absurd. Quote And Luke's filters would have no chance, because they of course would use OLGA stamps or, if still possible, the Taproot method, not OP_RETURN. Knots nodes and future BIP444 nodes understand full well that we can't stop all spam. All we can do is reduce it. Either play the whack-a-mole game or get invaded by moles all over your house. Your choice. I'm opting to resist spam, not open the door to them or negociate with them. I got balls, you don't. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: gmaxwell on November 12, 2025, 06:18:04 PM PepeLapiu's home exists.
Child pornographers exist. They could put their smutt in PepeLapiu's home. Why would they put it there? Apparently that's not relevant. So we must bulldoze pepelapiu's home. Then the child abusers will know they aren't welcome and are sure to stop. QED. For those who are not mentally ill with an obsession about images of child abuse you may find this interesting: https://x.com/mononautical/status/1988449182462660964 -- extensive catalog of the raw destruction against Bitcoin that Luke-jr and his sicko picture obsession and vanity are eager to cause with a proposal that would have made the vast majority of all non-empty blocks in Bitcoin's history invalid. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: d5000 on November 12, 2025, 07:32:05 PM Anyone who knows how filters operate would know that there would not be a sudden spike in op_return right after core v30 is released. No sudden spike, correct, but 1 month after (with 10% of nodes running Core 30) there should already be a visible effect, if the theory that "Core 30 incentives spam" is true.But it isn't, there is no such incentive. I will continue to observe. All the while even the core devs have said this won't reduce UTXO bloat as existing spammers are not likely to switch to op_return. You're contradicting yourself. Does OP_RETURN now increase spam? Well, if not, what's the problem then? ;)Hint: It won't increase spam levels, but if data protocol developers care about Bitcoin, they will slowly switch from harmful fake public keys to less harmful OP_RETURN. That's all that's intended with that change. What core 30 did is facilitate a new use case for spam while doing nothing about previous use cases of spam. No, there is no new use case. Everything is possible already with the old techniques. In our other discussion you're probably aware if, I address this in more detail.There is an important difference. Up until now, they would have to exploit the system to spam the chain. I have written in other threads that indeed this is an argument that sounds good at a first glance.But I don't think it will have any effect. Not on the "degens", as they call themselves, (who are proud of their Taproot hack) that use Ordinals and Stampchain. And much less on people doing illegal stuff. And OP_RETURN means "nothing to see here". It is a signal to nodes that they can ignore everything behind that opcode. It's thus a signal that data isn't wanted or needed on the Bitcoin blockchain. Wolves exist. Child porners exist. Bad actors exist. Trying to pretend they don't exist and blowing up op_return is just absurd. Attention economy exists too. All we can do is reduce it. No, because it doesn't work until you don't tackle the fake public key spam. That has nothing to do with "having balls". It has to do with acknowledging reality.Please propose an effective filter and I'll ready to support it if it has no negative side effects (like confiscating coins). Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: PepeLapiu on November 13, 2025, 08:20:24 AM No sudden spike, correct, but 1 month after (with 10% of nodes running Core 30) there should already be a visible effect, if the theory that "Core 30 incentives spam" is true. But it isn't, there is no such incentive. I will continue to observe. You would have to be incredibly naive to believe that core 30 facilitates an other way to spam the chain, and that somehow no spammer anywhere is going to take advantage of it. We knew and agreed on both sides that the existing offenders won't switch to op_return. Both sides have made that very clear. Core failed to provide the nodes with any sort of filters since this spam attack started some 5 years ago. Always the same excuses: - Those are valid transactions - They paid their miner fees - We can't do it, and even if we could, we shouldn't. - It would compromise the censorship resistance of the network. - Miner fees will drive them out but by pure magic not drive out real bitcoiners. All those were excuses not to do anything about the spam as if it did not constitute an attach. But they went too far when they started to reject PR's with code already done to implement filters. All over bullshit reasons. Because spammers were bitching about censorship and based on a new definition of arbitrary data they just came up a week earlier. Than they blew wide open the op_return filter. Effectively creating a new use case for spammers. Sorry friend, core has been marked as deprecated. Quote You're contradicting yourself. Does OP_RETURN now increase spam? Well, if not, what's the problem then? ;) Core 30 is creating a new use case for spam. How long before they figure that out and start spamming the chain? Let me consult my crystal ball, shall I? Quote Hint: It won't increase spam levels That is incredibly naive. Quote but if data protocol developers care about Bitcoin, they will slowly switch from harmful fake public keys to less harmful OP_RETURN. That's all that's intended with that change. Bitcoin is money, not an arbitrary data storage facility. If your protocol requires 100,000 bytes of dara to be stored on 25,000 machines until the end of time, I say go back to your drawing table. Design your shit better. And I'm annoyed that you think for the changes to affect spammers, they would have to act right away. But for the changes to affect legit devs, that takes time. You use two different yard sticks here. Quote No, there is no new use case. Everything is possible already with the old techniques. Everything we are seeing is possible with the old techniques, yes. But none of it was sanctioned. They had to trick the system with things like fake pubkeys, and pass off a picture as a legit witness, along other tricks to fool the system. It was clear to everyone involved, they were crashing the party. But that's no longer true. Now we have a sanctioned space for them in op_return. They are no longer crashing the party with they junk, they would be effectively using the system as it's designed for them to use. I have written in other threads that indeed this is an argument that sounds good at a first glance. But I don't think it will have any effect. Not on the "degens", as they call themselves, (who are proud of their Taproot hack) that use Ordinals and Stampchain. And much less on people doing illegal stuff. And OP_RETURN means "nothing to see here". It is a signal to nodes that they can ignore everything behind that opcode. It's thus a signal that data isn't wanted or needed on the Bitcoin blockchain. Quote Attention economy exists too. While I admit talking about it might raise their antenna sooner, it's not an important part. Quote No, because it doesn't work until you don't tackle the fake public key spam. There is a way to stop fakevpubkeys from occurring, it's not very popular, and would require sweeping changes in every existing wallets. In any way, fake pubkeys have always been accesible. I believe if we get rid of the other spam methods, we would get far less spam over all. An ordinal, or a runestone, or a brc-20 token in a fake pubkey would still be visible and still could be filtered out. Creating more and more ways to spam, not doing anything about spam, those are not the right way to deal with it. Quote Please propose an effective filter and I'll ready to support it if it has no negative side effects (like confiscating coins). Well, for starters, a segwit filter already exists in Knots. It limits the amount of data you can put in Segwit. So that would make ordinal spam drastically more expensive. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself why they keep repeating the stoopit idea that filters don't work. Than go ahead and try to turn off the filters. If the filters don't work, why would they need to turn off the filter? Citrea might as well us the op_return with the filters up, no? It's contradictory. Filters don't work but they need to turn them off in order to do the very thing the filters were preventing you from doing. It's absurd logic. Title: Re: Nick Szabo weighs in, recommends Knots over Core v30 Post by: Wind_FURY on November 14, 2025, 05:30:46 AM Quote when CSAM collectors want to use the blockchain to distribute illegal content, they would need to run their own full nodes Why? It is possible to store and process only a subset of the mainnet traffic. If someone cares only about pushing data on-chain, then that person does not need any confirmation, that any coins are "real". Which means, that there is no need for spammers, to have a full UTXO set, to download the whole chain, and to verify everything. Only users, that want to use it as a payment system, need that kind of things. Spammers only care if their traffic is broadcasted further.Quote because their incentives to do so align with the network They don't. Spammers can store only data-pushing transactions, and discard everything else (which would also make everything faster for them, because OP_CHECKSIG verification consumes more resources, than checking some data pushes). If you care about pushing data on-chain, then you don't care, if any coins are real. Which means, that you can just ask random P2P peers about some traffic, and then just feed them with some data. If they will accept it, and broadcast it further, then you don't have to even care, if transactions are confirmed or not. To waste bandwidth, only abusing relay rules is needed (which is easier, since nodes switched from 1 sat/vB to 0.1 sat/vB, because some misconfigured nodes simply switched to zero, and started accepting free transactions, so they can be easily spammed). By the way, I think there will be more "block-explorer users" than "full-node runners", when it comes to spammers. All they care about, is if sites like mempool.space can show them, what they want to see, rather than if their coins are "real". Because if your end goal is to push some data on-chain, then you can use even zero satoshis, to do that. Which means, that it can be done even on testnet3, when the block reward will drop to zero. Because to push data, you don't need any coins. You only need to be a miner, to create zero satoshis out of thin air, and to spend it, while pushing your data on-chain. In testnets, it can be done with just a CPU. On mainnet, there will be probably some pools like MARA, which will accept such things, and confirm them. But they actually are without knowing. Because if they truly cared about their censorship-resistant "assets", whether they are dick pics, fart sounds, or "something else", LIKE how we care for a censorship-resistant form of money, THEN they should be running their own full nodes, no? 8) |
