Why is Bitcointalk Silent on Core vs Knots & the OP_RETURN Controversy?

[jessicalavrov]

weird how dead this forum feels on actual bitcoin stuff.
like… nobody talks about core vs knots, nobody cares that core forced the op_return limit removal, and the dev hostility around it.
back in the day bitcointalk was messy but alive. now it’s just bounties, alts, and random price threads.
is it just me or did everyone move the real convo somewhere else?

[FinneysTrueVision]

If you are the real Jessica Lavrov, it’s interesting that you’ve decided to publicly reemerge after all these years. I was under the impression that you were hiding in Russia to avoid legal trouble in the US.

There’s several threads discussing Core vs. Knots, some of them are more technically nuanced and then there are those using hyperbolic “think of the children” type of rhetoric to spread propaganda.

The Development & Technical Discussion board is probably where you will find the least amount of spam, although it is not the most active part of the forum.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

You mean like  What is your take on Bitcoin Knotz? Bitcoin node and wallet by Luke Dashjr followed by I don't understand the arguments for Bitcoin Core v30 (usually right under the 1st one)? As said above - that is what should be a purely technical issue: Mainly, should there be tx censorship to block something that some people perceive as 'bad'? The Cult of Luke think so while most of the rest of the crowd here think otherwise or don't care one way or the other.

Gmaxwell has a few good anti-knots posts there, one that sums up the debate quite nicely is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557375.msg65858248#msg65858248 another is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557375.msg65868613#msg65868613

I suggest you add your 2-cents on the matter to one of those existing threads.

[stwenhao]

Why is Bitcointalk Silent on Core vs Knots & the OP_RETURN Controversy?

1. There are some topics about it, even in this board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5560420.0
2. When it comes to OP_RETURN drama, then it is just a shitstorm. Most people don't understand technical details behind it, and they think, that something new was "introduced", while in practice, the only change is related to relay rules, and miners can make unlimited OP_RETURNs today (or even spend coins from future Segwit versions, and make 4 MB contiguous data pushes). So, no matter what Core would do, it wouldn't change the situation that much, because miners can already accept non-standard transactions anyway, and there are services like Slipstream.

weird how dead this forum feels on actual bitcoin stuff

I guess if someone would make a drama about sighashes, then most people would hear about their existence for the first time, even though they are implemented since 2009.

nobody cares that core forced the op_return limit removal

You don't have to upgrade. And you don't have to run a node, if you don't want to.

Also, even if Core would lift all limits, and accept all non-standard transactions in mainnet, then still: each node operator can decide, what to do with that traffic. And if miners would keep lifting next limits, then expect standardness relay rules to disappear, because matching mined block templates is more important. Also, it is possible to relay even partially-signed transactions with negative fees, but include in block templates only valid things. In relay mode, people could seed torrents, or run HTTPS servers, and nobody would care. Because if your node does more things, than just relaying regular Bitcoin transactions, then nobody cares, because every node operator can introduce its own relay rules, if needed. The only important thing, is to match, what is mined, but on top of that, nodes can process a lot of irrelevant traffic, if they want to (for example by running P2P marketplace or P2P poker game from 0.1.0 version).

now it’s just bounties, alts, and random price threads

What else would you expect? Developers moved somewhere else years ago. This forum is just yet another social media platform. It is unique, because all posts are indexed by web crawlers, which makes it more resistant to censorship, but after all, most people are here, because of social interactions, and nothing more.

If you would seek real, hard knowledge, you would just read more code, and talk with real developers, instead of being here. But then, you wouldn't complain about "silence", while this topic is "overheated", if you understand, why people are talking about OP_RETURN changes at all. There are more important things than that. And OP_RETURN is much better, than other kinds of spam, where consensus rules are enforced, and where data pushes cannot be ignored that easily, when you have to actually validate signatures, or make a more complex proof, to let other nodes know, that given transactions are valid.

is it just me or did everyone move the real convo somewhere else?

Serious discussions are in other places. But if you would want to reach them, then you wouldn't care about OP_RETURN drama at all, because you would know, that next limits will be lifted, one-by-one, and we are in 2025, and not in 2015. Which means, that standardness limits no longer works like 10 years ago, if miners can make services, which could confirm you any non-standard transaction (no matter which Core or Knots version you would pick).

[NotFuzzyWarm]

A very on-point summation about the Knots/Luke-Jr. thing  from gmaxwell in the thread stwenhao gave https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5560420.msg65858299#msg65858299 (emphasis mine)

It is also the obvious and almost unavoidable progression of filter proponent arguments.   Policy rules in Bitcoin can stop some junk traffic that almost no one is trying to make, but they're ineffective against motivated traffic.  This isn't a navel gazing speculation, it's what we've learned in practice as significant hashpower implemented full-rbf, reduced minfee, bypassed op_return limits, and sometimes bypass maximum standard transaction sizes--- all overriding default choices in Bitcoin Core and many requiring outright patching the code.  So if you've decided blocking traffic is a life or death thing, then obviously you'll progress on to things like legal threats, centrally managed 'filters', and trusted parties able to edit the blockchain.  These are just where you get from that line of thinking.

[DannyHamilton]

nobody cares that core forced the op_return limit removal, and the dev hostility around it.

Forced?  I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means.

This "controversy" is largely just a tempest in a teapot.

Core version 30 doesn't change anything about what a mining pool or solo miner can put into an OP_RETURN output in a block. It doesn't change anything about the OP_RETURN outputs in blocks that nodes need to relay or in the blocks that they'll be storing. It doesn't change anything about the fact that OP_RETURN outputs don't need to be maintained in the UTXO set.

This is entirely about some default settings on which UNCONFIRMED transactions a node will or won't relay.  If you don't like it, change the setting. Regardless of whether you run Core or Knots, you're welcome to change that setting. I don't really care which one you choose to run, Bitcoin works the same way regardless.