Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots, the OP_RETURN debate

[PepeLapiu2]

If that would be the motivation, then they would make a sidechain, that would be directly attached to Bitcoin, and would have 1:1 peg. For example: all Lightning Network transactions are strongly connected with on-chain coins. If instead of 2-of-2 multisig, you would have 2-of-2 multisig and Proof of Work, then it would be possible, to mine some altcoin with NFTs, or anything, and be rewarded with on-chain BTCs directly.

You would do well not to waste your time on motivation and intentions. It's not relevant. If anyone interacts with Bitcoin and not trying to use it as money, it's an attack and a threat, regardless of intentions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

For all I know, they may all think they are doing great things by circulating their useless jpegs on chain. The results is the exact same as if they were malicious.

[Satofan44]

The very fact that they got in through the window or fake pubkeys proves your lock worked.

Congratulations, you saved your precious doors, but got destroyed walls in the process. Good job. Because blocking OP_RETURN causes people to use more harmful ways of storing data (fake public keys are much worse than OP_RETURN, which is why OP_RETURN rules were created in the first place).

Precisely, I was going to respond something in this direction. The user got the order of things reversed. A lock is worthless if it leads to more destruction instead. Nothing was gained from this except a chance for useless ego posturing.

Denial of service _is_ an attack because the goal was to disrupt the normal operation of a website (to cause harm). The goal of Ordinals is not to disrupt the normal operation of Bitcoin (not to cause harm). That's the difference.

You are aware that there are subtle forms of warfare? A good approach to harm something is to trick the citizens or users to do it for you. In this case most users may not be meaning any harm, that does not mean that they are not causing harm with what they are doing.

What on earth are you talking about? Even most core devs agree that using op_return would be 4x more expensive than using fake pubkeys. I think, best case scenario is some spammers will use the more expensive op_return only for a little while, as to look nice. But soon enough, they will go back to paying Mara for their shitcoinery in fake pubkeys.

You are confusing the basics. Costs for inclusion as in fees is one thing, cost to store is another. Storing UTXOs that are worthless is much worse than the alternatives.

Who's really going to like the blown up op_return are state level attackers who will gladly fill the blockchain with filth like child p**n, dick picks, and malware. Than use that to discredit and censor anyone who has to download the entire blockchain, and the filth along with it.

It already has malware, CSAM and other stuff. What about it? Call the Democrats or the degenerate mule von der Leyen to ban it to prove your point.

[PepeLapiu2]

Thanks Calvin Ayre, for giving us a demonstration of how the fee market actually helps mitigate the spam. Plus the miners got paid a little more than usual in fees.

Please explain that to me. Because my febble brain fails to understand how miner fees will selectively make jpeg transactions unviable, but real Bitcoin transactions still viable. By what logic do you conclude that higher fees will discourage spammers only but not real bitcoiners?

It was an inconvenience for many users, but it didn't last that long and I doubt it will last very long the next time it comes back. The actual users of dick pics and fart sounds on-chain will realize that they will have a better UX in those other blockchains.

It's different this time. This time the community is not even recognizing it's an attack. This time, the devs and the community are opening the door to attackers by blowing open the op_return filters and treating Bitcoin as if it's "just a database".

This time, only a small segment of the community is fighting back and moving away from core and into knots. All the while the reat of you don't even realize that some core devs are building a platform where shitcoiners and degens will be able to create a private mempool with direct access to miners, and completely bypass the will of the nodes.

Yes, we have seen other attacks in the past. But the community recognized something had to be done and we fought back. Because that is what made bitcoin so resistant - the community. It's a different story today. The community doesn't even want to acknowledge there is an attack.


It's so simple, yet the majority of you don't even get it.

The blockchain of Bitcoin has a scaling problem. It can only do 7 transactions per second at best. In reality closer to 4-5 transactions per second. Compare that with Master Card and Visa who can do millions per second and ready to scale easily if they need to.

Crowding out the blockchain with ridiculous spam, filth, and malware, and opening the door for more of it, trying to find "new use cases" are not good ideas.

And while some bitcoiners are fighting back by running a knots node and building filters to keep out arbitrary data and filth, some of the core devs (Peter Todd) are building a platform to bypass node filters so that nefarious miners (F2Pool, Mara) can share their own mempool filled with junk.

Yes, I get it. Filth is already posted on the blockchain. But because it's already happened doesn't mean it's not a bad thing. And it's all encrypted and broken up into little pieces. Not something a VLC player can easily recognize as a contiguous file and play.

When filth got in, we recognized it was a problem. We didn't brush it off and open the doors wide open for more of it.

And yet, I have failed to find anyone who can explain what legit use case will ever need a 100,000 bytes op_return. Don't you think that's a problem? No?

[nutildah]

Denial of service _is_ an attack because the goal was to disrupt the normal operation of a website (to cause harm). The goal of Ordinals is not to disrupt the normal operation of Bitcoin (not to cause harm). That's the difference.

You are aware that there are subtle forms of warfare? A good approach to harm something is to trick the citizens or users to do it for you. In this case most users may not be meaning any harm, that does not mean that they are not causing harm with what they are doing.

Sure. But without any evidence to back assertions that this is what is actually happening, its just another conspiracy theory.

[PepeLapiu2]

I have full confidence that Bitcoin will continue to exist longer than those "attackers" stay solvent.

I don't think Bitcoin will stop existing. I think it's designed use case as money will fade away and give way to retarded p2p filth sharing network. All because of people like you who either don't understand what's going on or are too complaisant.

It's not a file sharing network. It's not "just a database". And it greatly saddens me to see that the new generation of bitcoiners somehow believe the best money ever created can double as a filth sharing service without any significantly bad results.

[nutildah]

I have full confidence that Bitcoin will continue to exist longer than those "attackers" stay solvent.

I don't think Bitcoin will stop existing. I think it's designed use case as money will fade away and give way to retarded p2p filth sharing network. All because of people like you who either don't understand what's going on or are too complaisant.

Yeah Wind_FURY. This is your fault. Just admit that you are a government spook saboteur paid to help collapse Bitcoin. You're probably the reason why the price went down today.

It's not a file sharing network. It's not "just a database". And it greatly saddens me to see that the new generation of bitcoiners somehow believe the best money ever created can double as a filth sharing service without any significantly bad results.

Nobody actually think this. Its a straw man argument driven by hyperbole. Admittedly, we're all pissing into the wind here. But I really don't understand what you gain from expressing the same opinion over and over again. We get it: you're upset. But you're not changing anything one way or the other. Especially when you do what a few others have done and take things to hyperbolic extremes. Of course everybody has the right to express their opinion, but what do you think you're actually accomplishing?

You can ask the same question to me. What am I accomplishing? I'm mainly just shitposting my opinions as well but I try to learn a thing or two here and there, and every once in a while I have a unique insight into a topic thanks to related professional experience; this being one of them.

Every time there is some existential threat to Bitcoin that makes some people lose their composure, it turns out to be nothing in the long run. Same thing with this current event.

[PepeLapiu2]

Every time there is some existential threat to Bitcoin that makes some people lose their composure, it turns out to be nothing in the long run. Same thing with this current event.

False. In the past when a problem came up, the community reacted swiftly. What we didn't do is attack anyone who raise the issue and claim they are exaggerating.

Today, the core devs are telling you straight to your face that "Bitcoin is just a database" and your reaction is to scrug it off and claim Bitcoin is anti-fragile.

Wallow in your complaisance. But don't come whinning to me when they have successfully turned Bitcoin into a dick pic sharing cloud.

To this day nobody, absolutely nobody has been able to tell me what use case will op_return with 100,00 bytes of data will serve. Yet when I suggest it's an attack, you attack me instead.

[Satofan44]

Sure. But without any evidence to back assertions that this is what is actually happening, its just another conspiracy theory.

You are not going to find the level of evidence that you seek. In any decently organized attack by attackers who are not complete idiots you won't find chat log leaks that confirm it is an intended attack (hello luke-jr). It is a theory but with a high probability of being true. Who created the proposals behind Ordinals? Who funded and supported them? Do Ordinals harm Bitcoin? Yes. Connect the dots, it is not easy. We don't need someone to publicly state "Yes I am attacking Bitcoin with this" to recognize something as an attack.

It's not a file sharing network. It's not "just a database". And it greatly saddens me to see that the new generation of bitcoiners somehow believe the best money ever created can double as a filth sharing service without any significantly bad results.

You can't decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. The beauty of Bitcoin is that if someone discovers new uses beyond the hard money one, you can't prevent them from using it this way. Trying to control how others use it, just shows that it is you who doesn't understand Bitcoin.

[nutildah]

You are not going to find the level of evidence that you seek. In any decently organized attack by attackers who are not complete idiots you won't find chat log leaks that confirm it is an intended attack (hello luke-jr). It is a theory but with a high probability of being true. Who created the proposals behind Ordinals? Who funded and supported them? Do Ordinals harm Bitcoin? Yes. Connect the dots, it is not easy. We don't need someone to publicly state "Yes I am attacking Bitcoin with this" to recognize something as an attack.

This is mostly just opinion & speculation.

"Do Ordinals harm Bitcoin? Yes." -- this is your opinion, and while I share it to a certain degree, plenty of others don't feel the same way.

"It is a theory but with a high probability of being true." -- you don't actually have any way of gauging this probability.

"We don't need someone to publicly state "Yes I am attacking Bitcoin with this" to recognize something as an attack." -- no, you don't need that, but claims of a coordinated an attack taking place would be more compelling with evidence.

For the sake of argument, let's say it was/is a coordinated attack with the end goal of harming Bitcoin. Well, the attack failed spectacularly, because Bitcoin is now stronger than its ever been. Ordinals onboarded a new generation of Bitcoin users: those who run their own nodes, practice coin control and participate in the Bitcoin ecosystem for the first time. Hash rate reached ATHs, price reached ATHs, fees are smooth and steady. The attack failed. Its over.

Continuing to yell "ATTACK!!!" at this point is just some ancient, primal fear-based psychological maneuver. Its political propaganda meant to rile up a particular side of an argument, even if its not based in reality. We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

[Satofan44]

"Do Ordinals harm Bitcoin? Yes." -- this is your opinion, and while I share it to a certain degree, plenty of others don't feel the same way.

Alright, with Ordinals we can leave it a bit open.

"It is a theory but with a high probability of being true." -- you don't actually have any way of gauging this probability.

I don't need to, welcome to the internet. For the sake of Bitcoin everything should be assumed to be an attack unless proven otherwise.

"We don't need someone to publicly state "Yes I am attacking Bitcoin with this" to recognize something as an attack." -- no, you don't need that, but claims of a coordinated an attack taking place would be more compelling with evidence.

It is not a coordinated attack. You just have to develop a protocol that is damaging to Bitcoin and let innocent people to use it. That's all that it is. A coordinated attack would imply some organized conspiracy between multiple parties, that is not needed.

For the sake of argument, let's say it was/is a coordinated attack with the end goal of harming Bitcoin. Well, the attack failed spectacularly, because Bitcoin is now stronger than its ever been. Ordinals onboarded a new generation of Bitcoin users: those who run their own nodes, practice coin control and participate in the Bitcoin ecosystem for the first time. Hash rate reached ATHs, price reached ATHs, fees are smooth and steady. The attack failed. Its over.

You can't criticize me for not having a way of gauging my mentioned probability and then write this, even for the sake of argument. You have no data on whether a there was any conversion from new ordinal users to users who run nodes.   However, sure I do agree that the attack has failed. Both Ordinals and Runes and whatever else they had going is dead now. Some people made money, other newbies lost money but it is over now.

Continuing to yell "ATTACK!!!" at this point is just some ancient, primal fear-based psychological maneuver. Its political propaganda meant to rile up a particular side of an argument, even if its not based in reality. We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

Here is a better example.

I got curious and did quick search. mempool.space give tag to that TX with "Fake scripthash"[1] and it seems it use standard called OLGA stamps[2]. It's crazy, considering using Ordinal would be cheaper and less bloat considering size of the arbitrary data. I'm not sure what Knots could do without also limit certain type of monetary TX or turn it into cat-and-mouse.
[2] https://github.com/mikeinspace/stamps/blob/main/OLGA.md

This approach creates (effectively) permanent UTXOs, wherein a small amount of bitcoin dust is burnt.

If you care about Bitcoin, you will not develop something like this.

Does an attack always require malicious intent? I mean we are going into speculative area in any case because we can't know what someone really thinks, despite what they say or write. In the case of OLGA stamps and similarly functioning stamping services they are very detrimental to Bitcoin. If you know anything about scaling and UTXOs and you care about Bitcoin, you will not create something like this. Actually you will gladly not create anything at all instead of creating something like this.

When someone comes up with something that damaging I'd rather assume it is an attack than to presume the opposite. Why would I give them the benefit of doubt, how does that benefit us? While they are actively damaging Bitcoin and they won't retract their invention or at the very least its endorsement, I should give them the benefit of doubt?  

[PepeLapiu]

Core will only get worse over time. Don't be surprised the day comes when the devs propose
the removal of the 21 million limit cap and convert bitcoin into a proof of stake consensus.
They have already started talking about such things believe it or not.

They can't Be that stupid. They are very much aware that such an Hardfork would require major consensus
And the most wouldn't accept such
Because at the end that's just a Shitcoin not Bitcoin.

The truth is at the end of the day, it would be hard for this side to convince that side and vice

Don't be so naive. 10 or 5 years ago, nobody would believe the core devs would attempt to forcefully create a new way to spam the network. Yet here we are.

And at least one core dev,  Peter Todd (shithead), has proposed seriously to increase the issuance of coin.

Not surprisingly, Peter Todd is also the core dev responsible for forking core to produce Libre Relay. It's essentially a network of nodes that filter nothing, and relay spam to each other, as a form of private mempool. Which is geared towards mining pool like Mara and F2Pool, the two biggest spam processor miners.

And of course he's doing it with the thumbs up from the rest of core.

[Wind_FURY]

I have full confidence that Bitcoin will continue to exist longer than those "attackers" stay solvent.

I don't think Bitcoin will stop existing. I think it's designed use case as money will fade away and give way to retarded p2p filth sharing network. All because of people like you who either don't understand what's going on or are too complaisant.

Yeah Wind_FURY. This is your fault. Just admit that you are a government spook saboteur paid to help collapse Bitcoin. You're probably the reason why the price went down today.

It's my fault that it's giving everyone another good opportunity to buy Bitcoin with a discount?

But for that post saying that Bitcoin's use case as money will fade away because dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain continue to exist - that's definitely NOT true.

What currency do those dick pic and fart sound lovers use to buy and sell their dick pics and fart sounds?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Plus they denominate their markets in Bitcoin, not fiat. Denominating an economy in Bitcoin couldn't get more "Bitcoin as money" than that.

[gmaxwell]

Peter Todd isn't a bitcoin core dev. He's an outsider to the project and broadly disliked by many of the contributors.  Like anyone else he's free to propose changes and has done so from time to time but rarely.

Librerelay-- which Todd is the developer of-- is the exact opposite of a private mempool.  It's open source node software that forms a *public* network of consenting participants that have relaxed relay rules... it's a bulwark against transaction censorship as well as a bit of performance art showing that Bitcoin's design limits the effectiveness of any such censorship.

I thought the filterboi cry was about freedom to regulate whats in their own mempools?  Oh right. That was just a lie:  Knots, ocean, and their cult of religious fundies is just another dishonest authoritarian powergrab out to impose their particular view of right and wrong on the consensual conduct of third parties.  In filterboi land everyone has the right to manage their own systems how they see fit... at least until a filterboi disagrees and then they think they can tell you what to do with your own systems and software.  Fuck you and your paper straw ban cancel culture.

[PepeLapiu]

Precisely, I was going to respond something in this direction. The user got the order of things reversed. A lock is worthless if it leads to more destruction instead. Nothing was gained from this except a chance for useless ego posturing.

That is such a dumb thing to say.
If you have a lock on your door, it keep most intruders from barging in.
Of course more motivated intruders might climb up and break a second floor window.
But you don't blame the door lock for it. You don't keep the front door wide open and invite in all the intruders.
You could put bars on your window. In which case you will keep even more intruders from breaking in. And the more motivated ones might tear down a wall of your house.
But blaming the door lock and window bars is just dumb. Removing the door lock and bars on the windows will just signal to all intruders are they are now welcome to barge in.

But go ahead and remove your door locks to prevent intruders from tearing down your wall. Let me know how that goes for you.

Maybe you should leave a warm meal and a cold beer on the kitchen table too. So the intruders don't mess up your kitchen when they try to cook something for themselves.

Maybe you should leave your car door unlocked and opened. Because after all, some thieves might break the window to get in. And make sure to leave your wallet on the seat, so they don't mess up your glove box. There is nothing you can do against intruders and thieves who are too determined. So might as well cater to them, even if they are not determined enough to break your door or mess up your glove box.

[stwenhao]

Maybe you should leave a warm meal and a cold beer on the kitchen table too. So the intruders don't mess up your kitchen when they try to cook something for themselves.

I guess this will be also done. Because when next limits will be lifted, then cloud storage can be used more often than payments. And then, if some Segwit version will be reserved for up to 4 MB data pushes, then it wouldn't surprise me.

If someone will write a BIP, where a new Segwit address like bc1pjpgs4z43yh will allow pushing a single witness element of arbitrary size, then it wouldn't surprise me. And then, some mining pools can start running some version, which would support it directly. Then, Core developers will observe the chain, and see a lot of non-standard transactions. So, they will then make it standard, to improve block propagation.

Sooner or later, I expect all limits will be lifted, one-by-one. The question is not "if" a given limit will be lifted, but "when" and "how". At least now, the maximum size of the block is limited to 4 MB. But if the hashrate majority will decide to make another Segwit-like change, and make it unlimited, then it wouldn't surprise me. Fortunately, if additional space is used for non-consensus things, like pushing arbitrary data, then it doesn't have to be mandatory, and can be made as a no-fork, and then, people can stick with the old version, where 4 MB limit is enforced.

[PepeLapiu2]

Sooner or later, I expect all limits will be lifted, one-by-one. The question is not "if" a given limit will be lifted, but "when" and "how". At least now, the maximum size of the block is limited to 4 MB. But if the hashrate majority will decide to make another Segwit-like change, and make it unlimited, then it wouldn't surprise me. Fortunately, if additional space is used for non-consensus things, like pushing arbitrary data, then it doesn't have to be mandatory, and can be made as a no-fork, and then, people can stick with the old version, where 4 MB limit is enforced.

I have to be honest, I'm getting more hopeful every day. The Knots nodes numbers keep going up.at a steady pace. And the core shills are putting up such a ridilous rethoric that it's hard for people to keep believing what they say and do.

I mean, I I just keep hammering it in that nobody even put in a pull request to blow up the op_return. It's just Citria that put in a pull request to increase the op_return from 80 bytes to only 150 bytes.

150 bytes is still so incredibly small. You can't even draw a half of a desktop icon with 150 bytes.

But core squinted really really hard and saw 100,000 bytes instead of 150 bytes? 1250x increase instead of a 2x increase?

I think there's hope. I think we're going to win.

Run Knots my friend. It's basically free if you can get an old laptop, a 1TB external drive, and a good connection.

At the very least core nuts are clamped in a vise. They no longer claim they will nuke the filter, they no longer have the filter marked as deprecated. They left the filter as is but with the default setting to maxed out 100,000 bytes. And the node runners can pop the hood, fumble around and turn it back down to whatever they like.

Core has lost all credibility and they lost the trust of bitcoiners. And they know it. They are trying to salvage what they can.

If I were Gloria Zhao, I would make an announcement that she kicked to the curb all those who were pushing for this. Maybe even resign and tell people she will look for an other lead dev who will be working to make more filters, not remove the ones we already have.

And most importantly, she should publish a list of all the core funding sources.

Yeah, a boi can dream....