Core and spam debate - easy explanation

[PepeLapiu]

We heard so many versions how Bitcoin would be over as soon as the OP_RETURN policy changes were merged, and nothing has happened since that event occurred.

This is a strawman arguement. I don't know anyone on my side who predicted that bitcoin would collapse the minute core 30 spamware got online. But this is the internet, you'll find people on both sides who still think the earth is flat.

I think it's only obvious that at some point we are going to get swamped with outrageous disgusting illegal files in op_return. It's not an if, but a when. Here are the contingencies most likely to do this:

- A state level actor, or bank level actor who wants to kill or slow down bitcoin adoption. Or greatly reduce the incentives to run a node. So that bitcoin gets more centralized than it already is.
- A degenerate who would prefer to dump the legal/moral/social risk to the 90,000 nodes rather than keeping it on his own machine.
- A shitcoiner who thinks this is going to promote his own shitcoin
- A whale with a big put position, who stands to profit from the resulting price drop.
- Even someone on my side who wants to gibe you a giant "told you so" foam finger and drum up support for BIP110.


Being able to run a Bitcoin Node or running a Node for a long time does not make me technologically literate or skilled enough to be able to decide the truth in difficult topics of information theory, like the one that is about spam here. I think this is part of the problem. Many people believe that things which they are doing such as programming gives them the knowledge to form opinions on these topics which is not correct. It may make learning some new information easier, but it does not automatically provide the ability to lock onto the real truth of the situation. I've seen a few old node runners tricked by this OP_RETURN scaremongering..

It is impossible, especially with wallets that have many shitcoins and tokens on them. We may not be favorable to those here but they have huge user bases and are often also lagging behind in changes that may not be urgent.

If we change bitcoin in a way that makes existing wallets not function until they update, I think that qualifies as a pretty urgent thing, no?

Who is we? And what gives us the right to cause an urgent change in Bitcoin? The case is even more dire when we are talking about a change that is not urgent from a security standpoint, who are we to cause such urgency to other participants of the network?

We as in we the nodes. And I happen to believe this is an urgently needed update.
In any case, core decided to fundamentally change the use case of bitcoin by changing the op_return limit. We didn't agree to that.

Yes, I'm already aware, thank you.

I'm running your info up to someone who knows more than me.

I checked it, and other readers or participants are also checking it. The situation with fake public keys is correct, and there is no good solution to it. As you see in this part, if we all used Taproot we could do something about the public keys but even with 100% adoption of current addresses it does not help us. There are simply too many coins on different old address types and we can't do anything about that. Any proposal that would make coins widely unspendable is malicious, it goes against the main principles that Bitcoin stands for.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I support The Cat which would effectively remove from the UTXO set the dust spam UTXOs. However, that is the only confiscatory proposal. The jury is still out about two signed messages being possible on a single output. And raising the dust limit would make unslendable fake pubkeys a lot more expensive.

I don't think it's unacceptable to confiscate a bunch of 25¢ proven spam UTXOs from the UTXO set. Bitcoin has the right to protect itself from attackers and retards.

[Dogedegen]

This is a strawman arguement. I don't know anyone on my side who predicted that bitcoin would collapse the minute core 30 spamware got online. But this is the internet, you'll find people on both sides who still think the earth is flat.

Plenty of people everywhere wrote this from that side, and since the limit was raised there were only cricket noises at best.

I think it's only obvious that at some point we are going to get swamped with outrageous disgusting illegal files in op_return. It's not an if, but a when. Here are the contingencies most likely to do this:

The chain is already full of illegal files, and shitcoins even have it worse. So what about this would be new? You are not able to prove that this is not so, because that is how information theory works and there are countless ways to store this data that may make it obvious or non obvious. So while you may say look this block is clean and has only generic clean data, it may actually be full of illegal files.

We as in we the nodes. And I happen to believe this is an urgently needed update.
In any case, core decided to fundamentally change the use case of bitcoin by changing the op_return limit. We didn't agree to that.

The majority of the we that is the nodes have decided that you are wrong, very few people listen to your ideas. So you have been rejected by this we. What now?

I don't think it's unacceptable to confiscate a bunch of 25¢ proven spam UTXOs from the UTXO set. Bitcoin has the right to protect itself from attackers and retards.

Proven, proven by who? You are also aware that that would be committing theft right? Since you are taking away somebody else's digital property. Also no exploit of any kind has occurred. While spam does cause bloat, it does not pose any existential threat to the protocol. Urgency or existential criteria is not met, you would just be committing decentralized theft and that is all that there is to it.

[PepeLapiu]

This is a strawman arguement. I don't know anyone on my side who predicted that bitcoin would collapse the minute core 30 spamware got online. But this is the internet, you'll find people on both sides who still think the earth is flat.

Plenty of people everywhere wrote this from that side, and since the limit was raised there were only cricket noises at best.

Again, I don't know anyone who claimed that core 30 would cause any nodes to crash. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you will find some rando who said it. But you will also find randos on both sides who think the earth is flat and the moon is a hollow alien lizzard base.

I think it's only obvious that at some point we are going to get swamped with outrageous disgusting illegal files in op_return. It's not an if, but a when. Here are the contingencies most likely to do this:

The chain is already full of illegal files, and shitcoins even have it worse. So what about this would be new? You are not able to prove that this is not so, because that is how information theory works and there are countless ways to store this data that may make it obvious or non obvious. So while you may say look this block is clean and has only generic clean data, it may actually be full of illegal files.

Survivorship bias. Just because it has happened in the past, doesn't mean we have to facilitate it.
Past illicit content was always obfuscated and/or broken up in pieces. The fact is that uploading a picture or any file to bitcoin was never a supported use case. So the offenders had to resort to fake pubkeys, fake sighash, and other exploits to make their file look like a genuine bitcoin transaction. Core 30 changed all that. Now uploading a picture to bitcoin is a supporter use case. And that was done with a wave of protest from the community.

One thing is for sure. In the past, when child porn was uploaded to the chain, nobody was stupid enough to say "But that's a valid transaction, he paid his miner fee. Stopping child porn would be censorship."

No, everyone recognized it as a problem. Nobody attempted to justify or defend it.

We as in we the nodes. And I happen to believe this is an urgently needed update.
In any case, core decided to fundamentally change the use case of bitcoin by changing the op_return limit. We didn't agree to that.

The majority of the we that is the nodes have decided that you are wrong, very few people listen to your ideas. So you have been rejected by this we. What now?

Around 50% of the nodes have not upgraded to spamware core 30 or moved to Knots, or to BIP110. It's likely they are waiting to make their decision, or they don't care, or they are not even aware of the current scuffle going on. They have no position on the subject.
But 25% of the network moved to Knots or BIP110. And around 22% of the network upgraded to spamware 30. So clearly, those who took a stand have preferred to leave core.

And there is a possibility that some of those spamware core 30 updates were automatic updates done without the user even being aware of it. Though that is impossible to determine, but still a likely non-zer0 number.

I don't think it's unacceptable to confiscate a bunch of 25¢ proven spam UTXOs from the UTXO set. Bitcoin has the right to protect itself from attackers and retards.

Proven, proven by who?

This is about The Cat BTW, not BIP110.
If you have dust outputs of under 1000 sats and your UTXOs are listed on spam explorers such as MemePool.Space, your UTXOs are proven to be spam.

You are also aware that that would be committing theft right?

Sorry, you don't get to exploit the bitcoin network for profit and for scams, than cry about it. You don't get to use dust fake pubkeys, dust fake scripthashes, and various other exploits and cry about it.

Since you are taking away somebody else's digital property.

Yup!
Fuck the spammers!
Rug the spammers!
Wanna cry about it, spammer?

Also no exploit of any kind has occurred.

Fake pubkeys and fake scripthashes are an illegitimate use of bitcoin. Segwit and Taprrot were designed to scale bitcoin, not for dickbutt.jpeg uploads. Segwit stands for Segregated Witness, not Segregated Dickbutt.jpeg.

While spam does cause bloat, it does not pose any existential threat to the protocol.

Let's agree to disagree. Bitcoin needs to be good money. Bitcoin can't be both money and file sharing.
The world needs honest money. The world does not have a file sharing problem, we have a money problem.

Urgency or existential criteria is not met, you would just be committing decentralized theft and that is all that there is to it.

The idea of confiscation only should come up when The Cat is in question. Neither Knots filters, nor BIP110 constitute any sort of confiscation.

If that's too toxic for you, that your dickbutts to ETH. And don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[Dogedegen]

Again, I don't know anyone who claimed that core 30 would cause any nodes to crash. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you will find some rando who said it. But you will also find randos on both sides who think the earth is flat and the moon is a hollow alien lizzard base.

I didn't say anything about node crashing, I said that Bitcoin would be soon over after this update because of whatever crazy alleged consequences were claimed from OP_RETURN. These fearful remarks were crazy exaggerations and lies. Nothing has happened, and nothing will happen because nothing has changed here.

Survivorship bias. Just because it has happened in the past, doesn't mean we have to facilitate it.

That is not what survivorship bias is. We are not facilitating it, and you can't stop it.

Past illicit content was always obfuscated and/or broken up in pieces.

It was not and you can't prove this to be the case. It is even worse if the whole picture is considered. It has been long established in law that it makes no difference if you have the whole pornography image in a single file or split among different files, this is a misunderstanding by those that do not work in this sector. Further, the rising of the OP_RETURN limit is not enough to store most high definition pictures of the current smartphones and cameras in a continuous form anyway. They have to be compressed or broken up in pieces. While Bitcoin is conservative, the average file size for images is growing rapidly. You are stuck in a world of 10-20 years ago.

The fact is that uploading a picture or any file to bitcoin was never a supported use case.

You don't decide what a supported use case is or isn't.

So the offenders had to resort to fake pubkeys, fake sighash, and other exploits to make their file look like a genuine bitcoin transaction. Core 30 changed all that. Now uploading a picture to bitcoin is a supporter use case. And that was done with a wave of protest from the community.

A tiny minority protesting is not equal to community protest. Nobody cares about Knots, you don't represent anything in this ecosystem at all that is why you are insignificant. You can fork away from your own

One thing is for sure. In the past, when child porn was uploaded to the chain, nobody was stupid enough to say "But that's a valid transaction, he paid his miner fee. Stopping child porn would be censorship."

It is a valid transaction and yes stopping it would be censorship. Something can be illegal and a valid transaction at the same time, those things are unrelated. Every transaction that follows the consensus rules and pays the required fees is a valid transaction. If you don't like what someone else is doing,t hat does not make it invalid.

Around 50% of the nodes have not upgraded to spamware core 30 or moved to Knots, or to BIP110. It's likely they are waiting to make their decision, or they don't care, or they are not even aware of the current scuffle going on. They have no position on the subject.
But 25% of the network moved to Knots or BIP110. And around 22% of the network upgraded to spamware 30. So clearly, those who took a stand have preferred to leave core.

Those that have not yet updated are in support of Core, because of that a majority of the network is in favor of this change.

I don't think it's unacceptable to confiscate a bunch of 25¢ proven spam UTXOs from the UTXO set. Bitcoin has the right to protect itself from attackers and retards.
Sorry, you don't get to exploit the bitcoin network for profit and for scams, than cry about it. You don't get to use dust fake pubkeys, dust fake scripthashes, and various other exploits and cry about it.

It is not an exploit, it is a valid use case since this is how information theory works. If you try to confiscate my money, you have committed theft and you should be put in prison.

Fake pubkeys and fake scripthashes are an illegitimate use of bitcoin.

They are valid uses of Bitcoin.

[PepeLapiu]

(...)

Consider what Satoshi had to say when he was confronted with the idea of Lady Gaga videos on bitcoin: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessairy."

Notice how with this simple statement, Satoshi made it clear bitcoin is not for Lady Gaga videos or other shit you may think of.

Notice how Satoshi didn't ask if the Lady Gaga videos are valid transactions.

[Dogedegen]

(...)

Consider what Satoshi had to say when he was confronted with the idea of Lady Gaga videos on bitcoin: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessairy."

Notice how with this simple statement, Satoshi made it clear bitcoin is not for Lady Gaga videos or other shit you may think of.

Notice how Satoshi didn't ask if the Lady Gaga videos are valid transactions.

Satoshi was not correct about his view on this situation, so quoting him has no meaning in the topic that we are discussing. Bitcoin is not a religion, Bitcoin Core is not a church and Satoshi is not an all knowing prophet. He did not understand information science as it is understood in the current time and since then there were many advances in research that have disproved his views on it.

All transactions that align with the consensus rules and pay the required fees are valid transactions. This is how Bitcoin works. You may not like what the transactions are about, but that does not make them invalid. It is just your value judgement about the transaction..

[BlackHatCoiner]

Notice how with this simple statement, Satoshi made it clear bitcoin is not for Lady Gaga videos or other shit you may think of.

Notice how Satoshi didn't ask if the Lady Gaga videos are valid transactions.

Satoshi also implemented bitcoin with the "longest chain" as a determining factor for the valid chain instead of the "chain with the most work". He also reduced the block size from 32 MB to 1 MB without telling anyone, and imagined that bitcoin transactions could work as point-of-sale because of 0-conf.

It is clear to me to this moment that Satoshi is not some divine figure, and he could have made many mistakes.

[ABCbits]

I think it's only obvious that at some point we are going to get swamped with outrageous disgusting illegal files in op_return. It's not an if, but a when. Here are the contingencies most likely to do this:

- A state level actor, or bank level actor who wants to kill or slow down bitcoin adoption. Or greatly reduce the incentives to run a node. So that bitcoin gets more centralized than it already is.

As i said previously, continue abusing witness data and encourage people to keep using ordinal are more effective approach than switching to OP_RETURN.

Past illicit content was always obfuscated and/or broken up in pieces. The fact is that uploading a picture or any file to bitcoin was never a supported use case. So the offenders had to resort to fake pubkeys, fake sighash, and other exploits to make their file look like a genuine bitcoin transaction.

Even with OP_RETURN, obfuscation still happen since you need to decode data pushed on OP_RETURN using UTF-8, ASCII or other format that need to be guessed.

(...)

Consider what Satoshi had to say when he was confronted with the idea of Lady Gaga videos on bitcoin: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessairy."

Notice how with this simple statement, Satoshi made it clear bitcoin is not for Lady Gaga videos or other shit you may think of.

Notice how Satoshi didn't ask if the Lady Gaga videos are valid transactions.

For other reader, you can see the full context by checking the original thread on Transactions and Scripts: DUP HASH160 ... EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG. Satoshi create script system, so Bitcoin could support transaction types he could think of.

[PepeLapiu]

Satoshi was not correct about his view on this situation, so quoting him has no meaning in the topic that we are discussing.

It is clear to me to this moment that Satoshi is not some divine figure, and he could have made many mistakes.

You two can't just claim he could have made a mistake just because what he said doesn't suit your beliefs and wants.

Here is what Satoshi said: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessairy."

What part of that is false? The part where Satoshi assumes bitcoin is not a Lady Gaga video repository? The part where Satoshi said that if fees aren't enough, we have other means to kick out spammers?

The fact is, you are both grifters, spammers, attackers. So discussing this with you is fruitless. You can't see the problem because you are the problem.

As i said previously, continue abusing witness data and encourage people to keep using ordinal are more effective approach than switching to OP_RETURN.

Nope. With the Segwit spam, I believe they still have to go through 3rd party spam miners (like Mara, F2, Foundry). None of those would willingly fill their blocks with illicit and controversial files. They are not stupid, they have lawyers, they filter that stuff.

But luckily for you, BIP110 addresses both of these exploits.

Even with OP_RETURN, obfuscation still happen since you need to decode data pushed on OP_RETURN using UTF-8, ASCII or other format that need to be guessed.

This is just stupid. You will never look at any code and just see a picture of any sort
 All data has to be decoded. All data require a 3rd party software to decode. All data needs to be interpreted. But you never had the option to upload a jpeg or a file to bitcoin chain. File sharing was never a supported use case of bitcoin. So you would have to hide your spam and filth and make them look like genuine monetary transactions. Because genuine monetary transactions is the only supported use case of bitcoin. Until core 30 spamware changed it. Now you can upload a file, any file to the chain, without bribing a spam miner for it. And you are using the network exactly as core 30 intended for you to use it.

For other reader, you can see the full context by checking the original thread on Transactions and Scripts: DUP HASH160 ... EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG. Satoshi create script system, so Bitcoin could support transaction types he could think of.

Now you are being plain stupid. That thread makes no mention of my quote at all. Completely irrelevant. If you want to see the full context, try this:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

[Dogedegen]

Satoshi also implemented bitcoin with the "longest chain" as a determining factor for the valid chain instead of the "chain with the most work". He also reduced the block size from 32 MB to 1 MB without telling anyone, and imagined that bitcoin transactions could work as point-of-sale because of 0-conf.

It is clear to me to this moment that Satoshi is not some divine figure, and he could have made many mistakes.

Great examples to what point I was trying to make! I think if we looked deeper into the post history of satoshi we would find more errors and that is to be expected. People need to stop treating him as a divinity and instead scrutinize all his content based on what we know today, but have understanding for some errors when they related to things that we not known at the time. In the case of 0-confs he was greatly mistaken too just like he was about this spam thing.

You two can't just claim he could have made a mistake just because what he said doesn't suit your beliefs and wants.

Isn't that quite ironic?

Here is what Satoshi said: "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessairy."

What part of that is false? The part where Satoshi assumes bitcoin is not a Lady Gaga video repository? The part where Satoshi said that if fees aren't enough, we have other means to kick out spammers?

List of false claims:
1. Bitcoin is not a Lady Gaga video repository. Satoshi does not decide this, satoshi does not decide what Bitcoin is or can be used for.
2. Claim that we can actually stop people from storing data in Bitcoin by using other means, this was disproved by many individuals.
3. There are no other means at all.

The fact is, you are both grifters, spammers, attackers. So discussing this with you is fruitless. You can't see the problem because you are the problem.

You can call us any kind of names that you want, but that does not change anything about this. We can store data in Bitcoin if we choose to do it, and there is no proposal in the world that can stop us. It is time to start working on the acceptance state of grief, you are still stuck in a mix of denial and anger. I don't understand what you mean to accomplish with your denials and the way that you are writing. People have demonstrated that spam can not be stopped, it can only be made worse and that OP_RETURN is the best option for those that want to store. It is not really a discussion..

[PepeLapiu]

List of false claims:
1. Bitcoin is not a Lady Gaga video repository. Satoshi does not decide this, satoshi does not decide what Bitcoin is or can be used for.

Look at the tittle of the white paper for a small clue of what bitcoin is for: money.
Furthermore, you are correct, Satoshi doesn't decide this, you don't decide this, centralized miners don't decide this, and centralized corrucy core certainly doesn't decide this. Nodes decide and the nodes are about to close a few doors for you spammers.

2. Claim that we can actually stop people from storing data in Bitcoin by using other means, this was disproved by many individuals.

False narrative. It's like claiming that you can't prevent mice from entering your barn while ignoring that a barn with mouse traps and cats will have far fewer mice than a barn without.
Resistance is not futile.

3. There are no other means at all.

That is the core defeatist claim: we can't stop spam so we might as well blow open existing working filters and cater to spammers. And this is why people are now rejecting core.

You can call us any kind of names that you want

Insults are the first filter - at the social layer. It worked with Vitalik. He tried to turn bitcoin into a shitcoin and he was told to fuck off.

We can store data in Bitcoin if we choose to do it, and there is no proposal in the world that can stop us.

If so, than you should have no problems with running BIP110, since it's not going to stop your shit and spam at all?

But I will tell you where Satoshi would be wrong today. Miner fees are no longer sufficient to weed out spam. In fact when it comes to ordinals, the miner fees work the other way around and they promote spam over monetary transactions.

This is why we can't just count on miner fees, and we have to go to other things to weed out the spammers, the grifters, the attackers, and the scammers, such as yourself.

[ABCbits]

As i said previously, continue abusing witness data and encourage people to keep using ordinal are more effective approach than switching to OP_RETURN.

Nope. With the Segwit spam, I believe they still have to go through 3rd party spam miners (like Mara, F2, Foundry). None of those would willingly fill their blocks with illicit and controversial files. They are not stupid, they have lawyers, they filter that stuff.

But luckily for you, BIP110 addresses both of these exploits.

Ordinal TX (that use witness data) considered as standard TX (unless the TX size is above 100 vKB or 400 thousand weight units), which is one of reason Luke made this PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408. Besides, the reality is most mining pool simply include almost all standard TX, excluding TX with low fee rate based on my past observation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5565739.msg66063663#msg66063663.

Even with OP_RETURN, obfuscation still happen since you need to decode data pushed on OP_RETURN using UTF-8, ASCII or other format that need to be guessed.

This is just stupid. You will never look at any code and just see a picture of any sort
 All data has to be decoded. All data require a 3rd party software to decode. All data needs to be interpreted. But you never had the option to upload a jpeg or a file to bitcoin chain. File sharing was never a supported use case of bitcoin. So you would have to hide your spam and filth and make them look like genuine monetary transactions. Because genuine monetary transactions is the only supported use case of bitcoin. Until core 30 spamware changed it. Now you can upload a file, any file to the chain, without bribing a spam miner for it. And you are using the network exactly as core 30 intended for you to use it.

Do you forget about Ordinal, including the fact Ordinal TX considered as standard TX and mined by most/all mining pool? Should i remind that OP_RETURN is inferior choice to bloat blockchain size since it doesn't have witness discount benefit?

For other reader, you can see the full context by checking the original thread on Transactions and Scripts: DUP HASH160 ... EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG. Satoshi create script system, so Bitcoin could support transaction types he could think of.

Now you are being plain stupid. That thread makes no mention of my quote at all. Completely irrelevant. If you want to see the full context, try this:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

A snipped satoshi's quote obviously isn't full context.

[PepeLapiu]

Do you forget about Ordinal, including the fact Ordinal TX considered as standard TX and mined by most/all mining pool?

Knots has an ordinal filter. Of course it doesn't do anything because core, which has 75% of the network has refused to run that filter for the last 3 years. And they still refuse to run it. Core is not part of the solution, core is part of the problem.

When Luke suggested the filter 3 years ago, a bunch of spammers complained and bitched, and so core changed the documentation to turn a bug into a feature, and proclaimed the filter was too controversial.

But they didn't think blowing up the op_return filter was controversial at all?

Should i remind that OP_RETURN is inferior choice to bloat blockchain size since it doesn't have witness discount benefit?

Op_return was offered as a way to spam the chain in a less harmful way. That was of course before Segwit and Taproot which created the Segwit spam exploit.
Now some spammers are saying the are deliberately using the most harmful ways to spam in order to deliberately cause as much damage as possible. Core is blowing up filter, catering to spammers, and refusing to make the tools for the nodes to fight spam.
So we have had enough. We are no longer negociating with spammers and grifters. We will attack each and every way to spam bitcoin, BIP110 is just the beginning.  All the while, you'll be twirling your thumbs are repeating "can't do it, fighting spam is futile, what is spam anyways, fighting spam is censorship, the fees are the filter".

For other reader, you can see the full context by checking the original thread on Transactions and Scripts: DUP HASH160 ... EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG. Satoshi create script system, so Bitcoin could support transaction types he could think of.

Now you are being plain stupid. That thread makes no mention of my quote at all. Completely irrelevant. If you want to see the full context, try this:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

A snipped satoshi's quote obviously isn't full context.

I left a link to the quote. Anyone who wants to see more can click on the link and figure out for themselves what the context is. And since you keep claiming I don't offer the context, I'm going to hold your hand here.

Gavin Andersen said:

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

And to this, Satoshi replied:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

This enough context for you? Do you want to explain what Satoshi meant in YOUR context?

[ABCbits]

Do you forget about Ordinal, including the fact Ordinal TX considered as standard TX and mined by most/all mining pool?

Knots has an ordinal filter. Of course it doesn't do anything because core, which has 75% of the network has refused to run that filter for the last 3 years. And they still refuse to run it. Core is not part of the solution, core is part of the problem.

When Luke suggested the filter 3 years ago, a bunch of spammers complained and bitched, and so core changed the documentation to turn a bug into a feature, and proclaimed the filter was too controversial.

But they didn't think blowing up the op_return filter was controversial at all?

Then why do you previously claim "With the Segwit spam, I believe they still have to go through 3rd party spam miners (like Mara, F2, Foundry)" when you also admit such TX considered standard (and relayed) by Bitcoin Core nodes?

Should i remind that OP_RETURN is inferior choice to bloat blockchain size since it doesn't have witness discount benefit?

Op_return was offered as a way to spam the chain in a less harmful way. That was of course before Segwit and Taproot which created the Segwit spam exploit.
Now some spammers are saying the are deliberately using the most harmful ways to spam in order to deliberately cause as much damage as possible. Core is blowing up filter, catering to spammers, and refusing to make the tools for the nodes to fight spam.
So we have had enough. We are no longer negociating with spammers and grifters. We will attack each and every way to spam bitcoin, BIP110 is just the beginning.  All the while, you'll be twirling your thumbs are repeating "can't do it, fighting spam is futile, what is spam anyways, fighting spam is censorship, the fees are the filter".

Why do you falsely claim i repeat or have stance "can't do it, fighting spam is futile"? I clearly state different things such as this one.

Where should i be if i hate non-monetary TX, but also think BIP 110 approach too extreme?

A snipped satoshi's quote obviously isn't full context.

I left a link to the quote. Anyone who wants to see more can click on the link and figure out for themselves what the context is. And since you keep claiming I don't offer the context, I'm going to hold your hand here.

Gavin Andersen said:

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

And to this, Satoshi replied:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

This enough context for you? Do you want to explain what Satoshi meant in YOUR context?

Based on Satoshi's earlier post on same thread (see snipped quote below), it's likely he refer to other thing that doesn't impact script flexibility too much when it comes to support "every" possible transaction type.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
--snip--

[PepeLapiu]

Then why do you previously claim "With the Segwit spam, I believe they still have to go through 3rd party spam miners (like Mara, F2, Foundry)" when you also admit such TX considered standard (and relayed) by Bitcoin Core nodes?

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

Gavin Andersen said:

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

And to this, Satoshi replied:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

This enough context for you? Do you want to explain what Satoshi meant in YOUR context?

Based on Satoshi's earlier post on same thread (see snipped quote below), it's likely he refer to other thing that doesn't impact script flexibility too much when it comes to support "every" possible transaction type.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
--snip--

That makes absolutely no sense. In direct reply to Andresen mentioning lady Gaga videos on chain, Satoshi said "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary."
And you think that in context, that means the complete opposite? That he was not replying to Andersen's concern about Lady Gaga videos, even though that was what he quoted in reply to?

[Dogedegen]

Look at the tittle of the white paper for a small clue of what bitcoin is for: money.

The title of the white paper does not dictate what Bitcoin is or can be used for it is a reflection of satoshi's vision. Money is just one vision that satoshi had, and it is a very limited one. Bitcoin is so much more than satoshi had envisioned.

Furthermore, you are correct, Satoshi doesn't decide this, you don't decide this, centralized miners don't decide this, and centralized corrucy core certainly doesn't decide this. Nodes decide and the nodes are about to close a few doors for you spammers.

It is not going to happen and it is time to stop pretending like it is.

False narrative. It's like claiming that you can't prevent mice from entering your barn while ignoring that a barn with mouse traps and cats will have far fewer mice than a barn without.
Resistance is not futile.

It is not a false narrative, it has been proven to you that there is no way to prevent storing data. You can only push people to store it in ways that hurt the network more, that is all that you can do.

That is the core defeatist claim: we can't stop spam so we might as well blow open existing working filters and cater to spammers. And this is why people are now rejecting core.

Nobody other than a small minority are rejecting Core. A minority like this has no influence on Bitcoin.

If so, than you should have no problems with running BIP110, since it's not going to stop your shit and spam at all?

That proposal has less than 1 percent support so let's not suggest jokes here and talk about things that can actually happen, okay?

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

As you can see with this example, they didn't know much at these times. He was focused on the ability to encode stuff in the TxOut script when you can encode whatever you want with public keys, you don't even need script at all. All those anti spam measures do not work for this type of attack.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What part of that is false? The part where Satoshi assumes bitcoin is not a Lady Gaga video repository? The part where Satoshi said that if fees aren't enough, we have other means to kick out spammers?

What means? You can't kick out people who just broadcast transactions with data embedded. Even in the scenario that you completely reduce the scripting language to a point where it is only possible to pay to addresses, with no data fields like OP_RETURN, it is still possible to embed chunks of data in addresses, or make smart use of the cryptography, to circumvent it in the digital signature level.

I judge based on results, not words. Satoshi implemented bitcoin such that you can use it as a database beyond a payment system, which is what allows it to have softfork future compatibility.

[PepeLapiu]

Core is the base layer, spam is the layer on top. Core handles blocks, spam handles transactions. Core is slow, spam is fast. Core is secure, spam is insecure. Core is Bitcoin, spam is Ethereum. Don't confuse the two.

My other thread where I attempted to discuss BIP110 was locked less than 24 hours after I created it. And your post in in, along with anotherpostt that was pro-BIP110 were both deleted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.0

So now nobody can post there, and anyone reading the thread would get the impression that there is nobody on my side. That I'm somehow some kind a fringe lone lunatic.

Fucking coretard creeps will lose the game.

Also an other user DMed me and let me know my thread is likely to get deleted or locked as they don't tolerate much when it comes to discussing the problem of spam here.

Wanna bet the forum is paid for by blockstream?

[ABCbits]

Then why do you previously claim "With the Segwit spam, I believe they still have to go through 3rd party spam miners (like Mara, F2, Foundry)" when you also admit such TX considered standard (and relayed) by Bitcoin Core nodes?

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

My point is you made 2 contradictive statement. If Bitcoin Core node consider Ordinal TX as standard TX (where 75% network use it according to your claim), that means people who create Ordinal TX don't have to use miner service (e.g. Mara slipstream).

Based on Satoshi's earlier post on same thread (see snipped quote below), it's likely he refer to other thing that doesn't impact script flexibility too much when it comes to support "every" possible transaction type.

That makes absolutely no sense. In direct reply to Andresen mentioning lady Gaga videos on chain, Satoshi said "That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary."
And you think that in context, that means the complete opposite? That he was not replying to Andersen's concern about Lady Gaga videos, even though that was what he quoted in reply to?

I never claim "That he was not replying to Andersen's concern about Lady Gaga videos", but rather make reply to him while also pay attention to script flexibility that mentioned earlier on same thread.

1. @Gavin Andresen initially create a thread, while asking about script flexibility.

And is flexibility in the types of coins created the reason it is coded this way?

2. @satoshi explain why script have great flexibility.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

3. @Gavin Andresen admire script flexibility, while also commenting possibility someone exploit it to add arbitrary data.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

4. @satoshi mention other things to do about it. But since script flexibility mentioned earlier few times, it's likely Satoshi refer to other thing that also preserve script flexibility.

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

[DaveF]

Core is the base layer, spam is the layer on top. Core handles blocks, spam handles transactions. Core is slow, spam is fast. Core is secure, spam is insecure. Core is Bitcoin, spam is Ethereum. Don't confuse the two.

My other thread where I attempted to discuss BIP110 was locked less than 24 hours after I created it. And your post in in, along with anotherpostt that was pro-BIP110 were both deleted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.0

So now nobody can post there, and anyone reading the thread would get the impression that there is nobody on my side. That I'm somehow some kind a fringe lone lunatic.

Fucking coretard creeps will lose the game.

Also an other user DMed me and let me know my thread is likely to get deleted or locked as they don't tolerate much when it comes to discussing the problem of spam here.

Wanna bet the forum is paid for by blockstream?

Actually that user had all their posts removed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3751788
They were just a spammer.

Since you have your own forum you can talk about your coin there.
Oh wait nobody goes there because nobody cares about lukecoin.

Nobody cares about knots / 110 but you.
Can't wait till August when you all fork off and leave us alone.

-Dave