Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ASloveapg]

SATOSHI STATUE IS BACK IN LUGANO, SWITZERLAND

MOST BEAUTIFUL TRIBUTE TO THE LEGEND!
https://x.com/BitcoinConfEUR/status/1981697522130419874?t=T4q7hkvvXwLp-RRgzszujQ&s=19

[psycodad]

[
Got to rush to work, so I'll be very brief.

I see a scenario where bad actors add CP material in Bitcoin's blockchain (immutable). This could result in a worldwide push to completely ban Bitcoin and make it a criminal offense to even hold BTC, let alone host a node. The politicians (and anyone, really) will be extremely sensitive when it comes to the spread of CP in a permanent, immutable way (i.e., the only way it can be taken down is by shutting down the entire blockchain altogether). <-- The perfect reason to ban/criminalize it.

I hope I haven't really understood the OP_RETURN issue and what I'm saying above can't happen, but I don't like this at all. I hope I'm wrong.

Unfortunately you've seen exactly the attack vector that several are worried about.

I do not think so.
If somebody wanted to do that he could do it already before, otherwise how did the Satoshi Whitepaper end up on-chain?

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

https://bitcoiner.dev/2021/01/30/lets-get-the-bitcoin-whitepaper-from-the-blockchain/

My rpc-explorer even has an included decoder for block 230009.

[somac.]

OK.  I have decided to share my thoughts on this cycle's drama.  I am going to try to be even handed, nuanced and fair.  But I will confess up front I have just finished syncing my last of 4 active bitcoin nodes to Knots.  So, this reveals what side of the debate I am on.  

I understand running 29 and not 30, but Knots, what's the point of filters when they don't work? According to Bitmex Research, who I've been following, there are easy enough ways around filters anyway. Ignoring the censorship issue, Luke Dash Jr (who is unpredictable at best) running the show does not instill me with confidence either. IMO he is almost as unhinged as Craig Wright.

Running 29 seems like the only sane thing to do. IMO, The CSAM argument is complete bullshit too. That crap is all over the internet, they didn't shut that down (rightly so) and they are not going to shut Bitcoin down because of it either. Fuck sake, gold was used by the NAZIs and every other criminal under the sun, should we get rid of that too. Bitcoin is for everyone, including the scum of the human race and that's how it should be. Pictures have been on-chain for way more than 10 years now anyway, they don't matter.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh won't someone please think of the children. Blows my mind that Bitcoiners, after all these years are still falling for that shit. We used to be libertarians, what happened.

I'm not having a dig at you cAPSLOCK, and this is only my current opinion, it's just these dramas that keep popping up every few years lead by less than stable personalities are getting tiresome. Fees will take care of SPAM, and CSAM on-chain does not matter, just as it doesn't matter to the internet or email.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

[
Got to rush to work, so I'll be very brief.

I see a scenario where bad actors add CP material in Bitcoin's blockchain (immutable). This could result in a worldwide push to completely ban Bitcoin and make it a criminal offense to even hold BTC, let alone host a node. The politicians (and anyone, really) will be extremely sensitive when it comes to the spread of CP in a permanent, immutable way (i.e., the only way it can be taken down is by shutting down the entire blockchain altogether). <-- The perfect reason to ban/criminalize it.

I hope I haven't really understood the OP_RETURN issue and what I'm saying above can't happen, but I don't like this at all. I hope I'm wrong.

Unfortunately you've seen exactly the attack vector that several are worried about.

I do not think so.
If somebody wanted to do that he could do it already before, otherwise how did the Satoshi Whitepaper end up on-chain?

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

https://bitcoiner.dev/2021/01/30/lets-get-the-bitcoin-whitepaper-from-the-blockchain/

My rpc-explorer even has an included decoder for block 230009.

Indeed!  And that is another part of the argument.  The key factor on the "core side".

But in my opinion it gets much more nuanced.  The biggest issue for me to run knots (I was on 28 or 29 on my nodes) was to join the signal to core that they lost the plot.

I will go ahead and write the next part of this. So if you guys see a giant caps post, you can skip it. It'll help me to write it for some reason I need to put all this down.  As I said earlier, I think Bitcoin will be just fine, but... It could get a little bumpy.

[cAPSLOCK]

OK.  I have decided to share my thoughts on this cycle's drama.  I am going to try to be even handed, nuanced and fair.  But I will confess up front I have just finished syncing my last of 4 active bitcoin nodes to Knots.  So, this reveals what side of the debate I am on.  

I understand running 29 and not 30, but Knots, what's the point of filters when they don't work? According to Bitmex Research, who I've been following, there are easy enough ways around filters anyway. Ignoring the censorship issue, Luke Dash Jr (who is unpredictable at best) running the show does not instill me with confidence either. IMO he is almost as unhinged as Craig Wright.

Running 29 seems like the only sane thing to do. IMO, The CSAM argument is complete bullshit too. That crap is all over the internet, they didn't shut that down (rightly so) and they are not going to shut Bitcoin down because of it either. Fuck sake, gold was used by the NAZIs and every other criminal under the sun, should we get rid of that too. Bitcoin is for everyone, including the scum of the human race and that's how it should be. Pictures have been on-chain for way more than 10 years now anyway, they don't matter.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh won't someone please think of the children. Blows my mind that Bitcoiners, after all these years are still falling for that shit. We used to be libertarians, what happened.

I'm not having a dig at you cAPSLOCK, and this is only my current opinion, it's just these dramas that keep popping up every few years lead by less than stable personalities are getting tiresome. Fees will take care of SPAM, and CSAM on-chain does not matter, just as it doesn't matter to the internet or email.

No worries. My position is far more thought-through than just the think of the children thing, which is pretty lame all on its own

But I think there are many other angles to consider. AND though the CSAM argument is in ways shallow and hyperbolic it is a good example of a potential second-third order effect attack vector giving hostile governments clear ways to try to take bitcoin down.

I think many of the nuanced arguments are much more interesting.  And, though I did carefully examine what the implications of running knots were outside of just avoiding the op_return change, there are some risks there too.

Tradeoffs, as usual, all the way down.

I will cut to my punchline. This is what I posted on nostr a few days ago.

-edited out the punchline-  on second thought the story must be told in order lol.  I'll get there.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

The next post in my amazing series will be on the cast of characters in this drama that we've all been enjoying so much.

[Lucius]

Good news, or bad news?

Trump pardons Binance founder Changpeng Zhao

Changpeng Zhao, founder of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange Binance, has been pardoned by US President Donald Trump.

Zhao, also known as "CZ", was sentenced to four months in prison in April 2024 after pleading guilty to violating US money laundering laws.

Binance also pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay $4.3bn (£3.4bn) after a US investigation found it helped users bypass sanctions.

The pardon reignited debate over the White House embrace of cryptocurrency as the Trump family's own investments in the industry have deepened.

Completely irrelevant in every sense. If you have enough money, you can buy anything from a man who measures everything in money.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[AlcoHoDL]

Got to rush to work, so I'll be very brief.

I see a scenario where bad actors add CP material in Bitcoin's blockchain (immutable). This could result in a worldwide push to completely ban Bitcoin and make it a criminal offense to even hold BTC, let alone host a node. The politicians (and anyone, really) will be extremely sensitive when it comes to the spread of CP in a permanent, immutable way (i.e., the only way it can be taken down is by shutting down the entire blockchain altogether). <-- The perfect reason to ban/criminalize it.

I hope I haven't really understood the OP_RETURN issue and what I'm saying above can't happen, but I don't like this at all. I hope I'm wrong.

Unfortunately you've seen exactly the attack vector that several are worried about.

I do not think so.
If somebody wanted to do that he could do it already before, otherwise how did the Satoshi Whitepaper end up on-chain?

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

https://bitcoiner.dev/2021/01/30/lets-get-the-bitcoin-whitepaper-from-the-blockchain/

My rpc-explorer even has an included decoder for block 230009.

Thanks for this.

I clearly have to read more on OP_RETURN. Could this new change make things easier (and cheaper) for bad actors to add illegal content to the blockchain, as opposed to the current way to do it, as in the White Paper example you've shown above? A 100 KB data packet can easily contain a high-res offensive photo in JPG or other compressed format.

Just saying...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Could this new change make things easier (and cheaper) for bad actors to add illegal content to the blockchain, as opposed to the current way to do it, as in the White Paper example you've shown above?

Easier no.
Cheaper also no.

Arbitrary data could already be included fairly easily, and with segwit discount. This relay policy "relaxation" just makes it easier to have a continuous piece of data that is long, e.g. 100 KB. Note that this continuous piece is outside segwit, so it's more expensive.

[AlcoHoDL]

Could this new change make things easier (and cheaper) for bad actors to add illegal content to the blockchain, as opposed to the current way to do it, as in the White Paper example you've shown above?

Easier no.
Cheaper also no.

Arbitrary data could already be included fairly easily, and with segwit discount. This relay policy "relaxation" just makes it easier to have a continuous piece of data that is long, e.g. 100 KB. Note that this continuous piece is outside segwit, so it's more expensive.

Thanks.

So, in the old code (before the change), the arbitrary data could not be continuous? So you could not add a 100 KB continuous chunk of data before the change, but now you can?

Interesting...

[BlackHatCoiner]

So, in the old code (before the change), the arbitrary data could not be continuous? So you could not add a 100 KB continuous chunk of data before the change, but now you can?

No, you could always do that. It just now became a default relay policy on Core.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[psycodad]

Got to rush to work, so I'll be very brief.

I see a scenario where bad actors add CP material in Bitcoin's blockchain (immutable). This could result in a worldwide push to completely ban Bitcoin and make it a criminal offense to even hold BTC, let alone host a node. The politicians (and anyone, really) will be extremely sensitive when it comes to the spread of CP in a permanent, immutable way (i.e., the only way it can be taken down is by shutting down the entire blockchain altogether). <-- The perfect reason to ban/criminalize it.

I hope I haven't really understood the OP_RETURN issue and what I'm saying above can't happen, but I don't like this at all. I hope I'm wrong.

Unfortunately you've seen exactly the attack vector that several are worried about.

I do not think so.
If somebody wanted to do that he could do it already before, otherwise how did the Satoshi Whitepaper end up on-chain?

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

https://bitcoiner.dev/2021/01/30/lets-get-the-bitcoin-whitepaper-from-the-blockchain/

My rpc-explorer even has an included decoder for block 230009.

Thanks for this.

I clearly have to read more on OP_RETURN. Could this new change make things easier (and cheaper) for bad actors to add illegal content to the blockchain, as opposed to the current way to do it, as in the White Paper example you've shown above? A 100 KB data packet can easily contain a high-res offensive photo in JPG or other compressed format.

Just saying...

Yes, it probably makes it a little bit easier, so somebody willing to sabotage BTC saves now some 10-20 lines of python code to encode something illegal into the blockchain.
Then again, it probably makes no difference as your message to shitshippidi will still be something like "Write me a script to encode an image into the Bitcoin blockchain, please also make a script to decode it".
I am not yet fully clear if or how much of a difference it makes in fees to encode a 100k JPG the old or the new way, but so far I think the difference in cost is null or small.
^ BlackHatCoiner answered that above.

The problem with illegal content in the blockchain has been existing since I can think (I started to think about these things first in end of 2013 IIRC).

[AlcoHoDL]

So, in the old code (before the change), the arbitrary data could not be continuous? So you could not add a 100 KB continuous chunk of data before the change, but now you can?

No, you could always do that. It just now became a default relay policy on Core.

Thx again. Got to read more on this. I just hope they know what they're doing. Bitcoin code changes have always been something I dread over. I'm not against innovation and progress, but Bitcoin has become so important, and so successful, that changing the code when not absolutely necessary may not be worth the risk of the potential side effects.

[AlcoHoDL]

[...]

The problem with illegal content in the blockchain has been existing since I can think (I started to think about these things first in end of 2013 IIRC).

Yes, I also remember many discussions and articles about this. Well, Bitcoin appears to have survived it, and I'm pretty sure it will also survive this new change. But it's still unsettling when you read about it.

[Ambatman]

that changing the code when not absolutely necessary may not be worth the risk of the potential side effects.

This seems like one because it doesn't change much but hoping people would be good users.
Simplicity and immutability are underrated.