Am I rigth about the core/spam thing?

[PepeLapiu]

So here is the information I have gathered. And I have tried to focus mostly on what the core side of the debate is saying.

They are removing node running filter configuration control. Essencially, op_return filters are being blown up from 80 bytes max to a staggering 100,000 bytes max. In other words,instead of being able to post a few lines of text or a very very small and grainy picture in op_return, they will soon be able to store full size HiFi pictures and even small videos on the bitcoin blockchain.

Gloria Zhao, lead maintainer for core, have said that she doesn't think it's helpful to debate about jpegs being good or bad. I don't care of your picture is wholesome and beautiful and blessed by the gods. I don't think it belongs on a monetary database anymore than pancake batter storage belongs on my bank account.

Shinobi, a core supporter and journalist has said that the change is going in and if we don't like it, we can run something else.

Peter Todd has said that pictures and other arbitrary data is on bitcoin blockchain is not a problem so long as they want to post it and they are willing to pay the miner fee. To me that sounds like my bank should be willing to store my pancake batter so long as I pay my account's bank fees.

Multiple core supporters have said that the filters should be removed because they don't work. That spammers can get around the filters and post they spam with fake pubkeys and going directly to miners.

But to me, that sounds like they are admitting the filters work very well if spammers have to use other methods to post their spam. Like saying your door lock doesn't work because thieves can get in through second floor windows.

The core devs have said that op_return would be 4x more expensive than fake pubkeys for spammers to post their spam. So they are not going to ever use the coming large op_return. But they are also blowing up the filters to 100,000 bytes so that spammers can use that instead of fake pubkeys. Do they really think spammers will willingly pay 4x more just to help the network? And if spammers don't use the 100,000 bytes op_return, who is going to use it?

It feels to me that repulsive stuff like child p**n and malware is going to love this 100,000 bytes op_return thing. No? I mean, even the core devs are saying that spammers will not use the op_return as it's too expensive. But what about the repulsive stuff no miner would touch with a 10 ft pole? Will they be able to post filthy data and illicit stuff in op_return?

[Ambatman]

It feels to me that repulsive stuff like child p**n and malware is going to love this 100,000 bytes op_return thing. No? I mean, even the core devs are saying that spammers will not use the op_return as it's too expensive.

fake pubkeys can also be used in sending CSAM and they are way cheaper than OP Return as a result of Segwit discount.

Like a Dev or former stated here on Bitcointalk, miners are already bypassing the limit
So rather than a bypass, they plan on making it official
Encouraging Good actors to use it.


But it does nothing in stopping malicious actors. It's cheaper and isn't prunable.

In other words,instead of being able to post a few lines of text or a very very small and grainy picture in op_return, they will soon be able to store full size HiFi pictures and even small videos on the bitcoin blockchain.

A transaction size for Non Segwit is still limited to 400kb with headers and the like taking a kb which makes it roughly 399kb.

[pooya87]

In other words,instead of being able to post a few lines of text or a very very small and grainy picture in op_return, they will soon be able to store full size HiFi pictures and even small videos on the bitcoin blockchain.

That's still 100 kilobytes and nothing high def is that small (isn't the term HiFi used for audio?). But yes, after this change injecting arbitrary data with larger size into the bitcoin's immutable blockchain would potentially become easier.

Peter Todd has said that pictures and other arbitrary data is on bitcoin blockchain is not a problem so long as they want to post it and they are willing to pay the miner fee. To me that sounds like my bank should be willing to store my pancake batter so long as I pay my account's bank fees.

Well, the difference between your bank and bitcoin is that bitcoin is not centralized for us to be able to prevent abuse easily. So it has always been impossible to prevent random people from "storing their pancake batter" in bitcoin's public ledger. But from day one, we tried our best to make it harder for them to abuse the chain. If you check the policy (standard) rules in bitcoin you can see a lot of them; these rules are there to make abuse harder.

But ever since the Ordinals Attack, the developers' attitude seems to have changed from "making abuse harder" to "just let it happen and see what the result is" and finally to "lets make it easier for them to use bitcoin as cloud storage". Which is the reason for this increasingly heated debate for the recent changes in bitcoin core.

Multiple core supporters have said that the filters should be removed because they don't work. That spammers can get around the filters and post they spam with fake pubkeys and going directly to miners.

This has always been true and yet it never stopped us from introducing new policy rules to try and make the spam/abuse harder... that's until recently!