Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake

[Satofan44]

Now they are pushing for a controversial soft fork. It is clear to me as day that luke-jr is compromised and can not be trusted, don't let his past behavior blind you. It has all the standard manipulative bullshit in it.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017

Isn't this compulsory?

No. While it isn't viable to merely continue running old nodes as-is, if users truly wish to reject this softfork (and explicitly endorse forcing other compatible nodes to store and distribute the illegal content in block ), they can do so simply by checkpointing that block.

There are certainly practical concerns to take into consideration: rejecting this softfork may subject you to legal or moral consequences, or could result in you splitting off to a new altcoin like Bcash. However, strictly speaking, you are free to choose.

Any attacker take note and embed as much illegal content in unprunable UTXOs as possible so that in any case it is stored already whatever happens later.  
The luke-jr side is full of idiots, they are easily misled and turned into enemies of Bitcoin.

NACK

The fact that transaction txid 8e2ee13d2a19951c2777bb3a54f0cb69a2f76dae8baa954cd86149ed1138cb6c contains the full text of this BIP as of writing, while also being compliant with this BIP shows how utterly ineffective this approach is.

It doesn't even work.

[d5000]

No; the magic in Grin doesn't stretch into the impossible (which I think banning weak keys is).
Storing arbitrary data in private keys is the only known way to get a third-decent spam rate in Grin [1].

Thank you! Still about 66% overhead is quite good (makes spam expensive).

Nevertheless, it strengthens my belief that OP_RETURN is the "least worst way" to store data. As I wrote in other threads I would advocate for techniques to make it even more pruneable than now, so a new category of intermediate nodes (neither "full" nor "light"/SPV) could chose to not store them at all after the TXID/merkle tree is calculated. For the users, they would have all advantages of a full node.

Now they are pushing for a controversial soft fork. It is clear to me as day that luke-jr is compromised and can not be trusted, don't let his past behavior blind you. It has all the standard manipulative bullshit in it.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017

Indeed a very bad BIP. I'm sure that will never be accepted though. A temporary OP_RETURN ban? Lol. I also have no idea who the "dev" is, never heard his name.

I think this group is far too concerned about that "OP_RETURN makes data storage an official use case!!!!" argument. The 2023/24 ordinals wave will probably never repeat in this magnitude and it was "achieved" without any "official" acceptance by Core. And no, their hesitance to implement Luke's filters is not an "official acceptance" either, because it's simply based on the (correct) belief that filters do not work if you can circunvent them with unlimited methods.

[Wind_FURY]

I’ll be sticking with Core, I am running version 29.0 but will hold off from upgrading to 30.0 for now just incase anything unexpected happens.

The Core devs have never let us down. I know we should always, Don’t trust, verify etc but I was obviously here for the fork wars and I thought it was obvious then who the sound minds were and which side to be on.

I’m not sure if I trust Luke Dash Jr, he seems a bit eccentric and unpredictable. I will gladly take his fork coins if they decide to fork off.

High fees and all that Ordinals BS was very frustrating, network congestion was annoying but Bitcoin still worked as designed, tick tock next block, every 10-20 minutes. If that’s the worst it can get with 30.0 onwards then I will take the chance.

Luke Dash Jr. proposes, without actually saying it directly, that developers should be dictators in what actually is "spam" and what actually is "not spam", instead of letting the network and its participants handle it non-centrally WHICH what the fee market is already doing.

This filter drama is probably another mere attempt to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

[fillippone]

For those who were not in Lugano, I am posting here a debate about the topic here:



There were some heated exchanges between Luke and Peter.
Hopefully, it will help more people to have an opinion about this.

The video is eight hours long, can you give us the timestamp in where Peter and Luke started debating?

Plus to start the conversation, could you give us the context or a short summary of Peter and Luke's debate? Your opinion on the matter would also be appreciated. 👍

We can't expect people to post an eight hour video and start debating.

I tried the link from a laptop and it points directly to the beginning of the panel, actually, via mobile it fails, so I point out that debate starts at 1:53:40.

Regarding my position, I think Jameson Lopp stance is the most correct:”ruthlessly rational”.
I believe his technical pragmatism on larger non discountable OP_return making “block smaller” are a better policy solution than filtering transaction based on arbitrary conditions (“What is spam?” as asked by Peter Todd).

[Satofan44]

I tried the link from a laptop and it points directly to the beginning of the panel, actually, via mobile it fails, so I point out that debate starts at 1:53:40.

Thanks, that helps. I have not seen luke-jr on a video or anywhere else besides an old picture. This is not an ad hominem, I am genuinely curious. He looks really sick to me. Is this simply how he always looked or has there been a change? Some of you might know.

To be more on point now, look at luke-jr's starting argument and response:

I think that it is important that the audience realize that Peter Todd is a bad actor and that his Libre Relay is an attack on the Bitcoin network.

This is the first thing that comes to his mind. Adhering to consensus rules in a way that he does not like is "an attack". There is no end to irony here.   He just keeps going on and on calling everyone who does something that he does not like bad actors.

Regarding my position, I think Jameson Lopp stance is the most correct:”ruthlessly rational”.
I believe his technical pragmatism on larger non discountable OP_return making “block smaller” are a better policy solution than filtering transaction based on arbitrary conditions (“What is spam?” as asked by Peter Todd).

I may not like Jameson Lopp that much, but in this case he seemed to be a much more scientific and rational voice. On the other hand, luke was not arguing in good faith at all. Lastly, I came to the same conclusion somewhere else -- others here share similar views (example). Paraphrased:

Nothing is going to effectively change and the other side is just going to continue whining about non existent issues instead of admitting that they were wrong.

[Ambatman]

This filter drama is probably another mere attempt to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

Client first and then Bitcoin alternative. Already seeming like it.
I think in his opinion we are no longer using Bitcoin hence why he loves using dead
And wants to resurrect it in his own image.


Sadly, we should be aware that a decentralized system can't enjoy some benefit of a centralized system.
Expecting such means we don't understand what it means for a system to be decentralized.
The network is Trustless and Bitcoin strength lies in verifying all valid data without judgement or bias.

[gmaxwell]

Still about 66% overhead is quite good (makes spam expensive).

"Spam" is already thousands of times more expensive on Bitcoin that virtually any other blockchain.  The amount that remains is the residual that doesn't care about the cost or even likes it (due to crating scarcity for their NFTs).  If the first >100000% increase in cost didn't stop them or even attracts them to Bitcoin, what makes you think that an additional 66% would do anything but cause them to use even more resources on Bitcoin?

(and of course anything like that requires slaughtering functionality too.. but even if no one cared about that I think it's doubtful that it would achieve anyone's goals).

[d5000]

what makes you think that an additional 66% would do anything but cause them to use even more resources on Bitcoin?

Well let's speculate that we're heading into a high fee future eventually again. In the Ordinals wave we saw the BRC-20 sub-wave, where millions of transactions were created for the hope of some meme token getting some value. If transaction fees are at $5 for a token mint or transfer, then you might be more prone to create such tokens massively, than if the minimum threshold is 15$ because the buyer of the token will have to pay that fee too, so the needed profit is actually $30+. I can definitely see scenarios (based on past experience with Ordinals) where that can make the difference between a NFT "spam" wave really taking off or not.


I've seen the debate with Luke-Jr and his friends (and not so good friends) now. I understand Luke's point a bit more now I think. But I don't agree with him.

In the end, I think the debate is between a "theoretic" position - Luke's - and a "practical" position - Core's. Luke's theory that spam encoded in financial data can be still seen as financial data is not incorrect. But practically, it doesn't make a difference if there are websites and easy to use tools that happily decode all the "fake financial data" for you and transform it into images, videos and audios.

The Core position instead focuses on the practical consequences of "spam" waves, like the UTXO set pollution and the compact block issues, and tries to find a way to make node operation cheaper for nodes and thus more decentralized.

So while I can respect Luke's theoretical position, at the end it is a good example for the well known phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". His ideas would lead to higher node operation cost and more development cost.

All of that assuming that the NFT/token market stays the same, which is the most reasonable thing to do. And trying to predict market changes because of an "official approval" of large OP_RETURN data chunks is already taking the debate to another, much more speculative level -- we could also talk them about "the attraction of prohibited things", e.g. NFT guys often describing themselves as "degens". Would "degens" be happy to be "officially" allowed to do something? That's equally speculative.

Thus I stay with my stance: the Core 30 change is reasonable and has probably the least harmful practical consequences even if new spam waves occur in the future. Stampchain-based spam waves would be worse (and not even BIP 444 could stop them).

[fillippone]

Luke's theory that spam encoded in financial data can be still seen as financial data is not incorrect. But practically, it doesn't make a difference if there are websites and easy to use tools that happily decode all the "fake financial data" for you and transform it into images, videos and audios.

How has Luke responded to the fact that he was spamming the early Bitcoin blockchain with biblical verses in the first days?
I am sure someone must have asked this, but I don’t know when or where.

[d5000]

How has Luke responded to the fact that he was spamming the early Bitcoin blockchain with biblical verses in the first days?
I am sure someone must have asked this, but I don’t know when or where.

I vaguely remember something but I think he evaded the question, or that it was only a short remark from another participant of the debate he didn't react to. Perhaps someone who has seen it more attentive can clarify (I'm not really fond of seeing that debate again)

Anyway I think his point you quoted would still stand, as for him the essence of the question seems to be if you can interpret the blockchain as financial information or if you have a separate "data storage". While I don't remember which kind of method he used to embed the files, I think it was earlier than OP_RETURN's introduction.

Nevertheless, as I wrote, I don't support that stance as it completely ignores the "practical" side of things. And of course I completely oppose his generally hateful and conspiracionist behavior in that debate (and elsewhere).

[Ambatman]

How has Luke responded to the fact that he was spamming the early Bitcoin blockchain with biblical verses in the first days?
I am sure someone must have asked this, but I don’t know when or where.

https://x.com/jurbed/status/1982800731636658335?t=B1AvDurHdc_H0KwZB1OK0w&s=19

Not the first I have seen but can't really source them out since they were asked some months ago.

He stated it's a Coinbase message just like the one used by Satoshi "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
And are used for short harmless messages.

Coinbases and transaction spam are two entirely different things. Transaction spam serves no purpose, destroys coins, and can never be purged from the block chain. Coinbases can contain text messages by design, and can be purged immediately from your block chain.

[fillippone]

He stated it's a Coinbase message just like the one used by Satoshi "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
And are used for short harmless messages.

Coinbases and transaction spam are two entirely different things. Transaction spam serves no purpose, destroys coins, and can never be purged from the block chain. Coinbases can contain text messages by design, and can be purged immediately from your block chain.

This is actually a very big difference between those two types of spam.
The fact that coinbase inscriptions can be purged from the blockchain is a huge, but actually the only difference.
Still, this is a non-monetary use of blockchain; I see a double standard here.

[stwenhao]

Coinbases can contain text messages by design, and can be purged immediately from your block chain.

As well as OP_RETURN. It is invalid "by design", it is purged "immediately", and it was created, to encourage people to switch to some less harmful ways of putting data on-chain. So, if OP_RETURN will be blocked in that way or another, then it will re-introduce all problems we had, before it was introduced.

just like the one used by Satoshi

The Genesis Block is unspendable by design, and you don't need its content, to validate the blockchain. It is hardcoded to 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f, and you cannot even trigger chain reorganization on that block, so it is always considered as valid. The only reason, why Satoshi put the "Chancellor" message there, is to prevent premine, and set the start of the chain to 2009, and not to, for example, 1970. But you never need the content of that block, or the "Chancellor" message, because it is always considered as valid.

[btc_enigma]

I was able to write 912 bytes to an OP_RETURN yesterday

https://community.blockonomics.co/t/creating-an-op-return-transaction-80-bytes/1966

[Wind_FURY]

Luke's theory that spam encoded in financial data can be still seen as financial data is not incorrect. But practically, it doesn't make a difference if there are websites and easy to use tools that happily decode all the "fake financial data" for you and transform it into images, videos and audios.

How has Luke responded to the fact that he was spamming the early Bitcoin blockchain with biblical verses in the first days?

I am sure someone must have asked this, but I don’t know when or where.

That's the problem. It's like Halal and Haram for "them". "They" have made themselves THE decision-makers on which transactions are spam, and which transactions are non-spam. If they see a transaction they don't like? SPAM. If they see a transaction they like? NOT SPAM.

But they started something. What if the dick pic and fart sound lovers start to play that game and say that the filterbois need to do their transactions off-chain? Bitcoin is as free to use for dick pic lovers as it is for the filterbois.

[Satofan44]

I was able to write 912 bytes to an OP_RETURN yesterday

https://community.blockonomics.co/t/creating-an-op-return-transaction-80-bytes/1966

Congrats, but you were able to do this even before Core 30 was released with a slightly different way.   Sure it was a bit harder but most users are not even able to do what you have demonstrated there. Most Bitcoin users barely understand how Bitcoin works, how on Earth would they understand what OP_RETURN is let alone be able to use it?  

[Wind_FURY]

I was able to write 912 bytes to an OP_RETURN yesterday

https://community.blockonomics.co/t/creating-an-op-return-transaction-80-bytes/1966

Congrats, but you were able to do this even before Core 30 was released with a slightly different way.   Sure it was a bit harder but most users are not even able to do what you have demonstrated there. Most Bitcoin users barely understand how Bitcoin works, how on Earth would they understand what OP_RETURN is let alone be able to use it?  

It's not because they don't know or barely understand how Bitcoin works. It's probably because they DON'T CARE, no? This change in the OP_RETURN limit will be a nothing burger. Bitcoin will continue to be used as a censorship-resistant form of money, a store of value, an asset people want to trade in exchanges, and it will continue to chug along and produce block after block for decades.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sorry to disappoint the filterbois.

[fillippone]

For all they have been waiting for the single video, here it is:



Mixed feelings about the debate, a lot of fanboys in the audience on both sides, cheering and booing at every statement, but maybe this was meant to be.

[She shining]

For all they have been waiting for the single video, here it is:



Mixed feelings about the debate, a lot of fanboys in the audience on both sides, cheering and booing at every statement, but maybe this was meant to be.

The truth remains that no side can convince the other. When there comes a time on exploit on OP_RETURN. I won't be surprised if it's done by knot lover to try and prove their point that they are right because so far, they haven't.

[nutildah]

Mixed feelings about the debate, a lot of fanboys in the audience on both sides, cheering and booing at every statement, but maybe this was meant to be.

Hey thanks for sharing this, I'm listening to it now. Its good to get perspectives straight from the horses' mouths, that way you know exactly what they stand for, not just hearing it second hand.

It was telling when Lopp talked about how nobody has been sued for downloading data they didn't want to download, and that it happens all the time via things like website cookies... the downloader has never been subject to prosecution, and there's no reason why Bitcoin node runners would be as well. Plus of course you have to decode media data, which is a next step that nobody has to take.

And then Luke responded to Lopp by saying storage of illicit data is "immoral and illegal." Like he didn't hear what Lopp had said at all. He did repeatedly call Lopp a "bad actor." He can't really be reasoned with.