Core and spam debate - easy explanation

[DaveF]

So because of pepe's claim that there are so many BIP110 nodes I have been checking for and playing with things for last few hours.
Took me down an interesting path.
From another thread about how many 110 nodes there are. And going with the standard "every accusation they make against you is probably what they are doing" theory it pushed me to do more testing.

.....
I can't prove it, but I'm certain that if there is a Cybil attack going on, if there are any spoofed nodes, it's all on the core side.

It's Sybil attack not Cybil

It's actually difficult to *prove* in any way but it's kind of *simple to infer* that it's lukecoin trying for the Sybil attack.

According to https://coin.dance/nodes there are about 18,300 real nodes and 5,300 lukecoin censoring nodes.

I setup 4 nodes to test.

Test1:
If you spin up a few nodes and just let them sit there and sync by just average numbers ~ 20% to 30% of peers should be lukecoin nodes that connect to you.
With my (admittedly limited) sample size of 4 nodes that are bare configs. Just install and run lukecoin peers are under 7%

Test2:
Look at how much data the lukecoin nodes that connect to you are pulling (i.e. them doing an initial sync) for my nodes no lukecoin nodes made it into the top 20 of data pulled for 3 of the nodes. 1 lukecoin node made it into the top 15 of the 4th node. Which you can infer from that is (once again from a limited sample) that they are not for the most part syncing from scratch but rather coming into existence fully ready to go. Not many people spin up nodes that way.

Now without more info I do not know (or care) where my experience is in terms of what others see. I can just see from the 4 test nodes that something seems off.

These are all clearnet. Can't at all speak to tor connections since all the ones I have on tor by default block a lot of other nodes so I can not pull any meaningful data from them about peers.

Edit: If I have time I'll wipe these 4 and do a tor test this week. But, will probably not happen till the week after due to a lack of time.

-Dave

I started poking around and testing things. And with a bit of proxy work you can have 1 "real" node and then just put proxy software on a bunch of other machines and have them talk back to the 1 "real" node and all of a sudden you have things that look like a node to bitnodes and coin.dance but are really just passing data back to 1 machine.
Going to sleep now. But at least I know how they faked so much support. Will try to duplicate it when I have more time. Not sure if what I did in a few hours would be stable long term but for a quick test it worked.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

(...)

I found a few people on my side who claim that the price drop is due to controversial and unpopular core 30. Than I also found a few people on the core/spam side who claim the price drop is due to BIP110.
I find them both stupid and baseless because it's likely the price drop is just the normal cyclical thing bitcoin does every 4 years. So I never mention the price because it's a stupid unprovable thing on both sides.

I also found people on my side who claim that the core 30 nodes count is likely Sybil attack nodes. And same on the core/spam side. But they both have absolutely no proof of it. They can both be 100% true or 100% wrong with nothing to back their claims.

So go ahead. Make all the claims you want about Knots being all Sybil attack nodes. I don't care, I won't engage with it anymore until you bring us some proof of it. And also if you can prove that the core 30 nodes are not Sybil attack nodes. You won't find either. It's a waste of my time to engage in such frivolous stoopidity.

What I do know is that one hardware company (Casa I think) has an option to auto update your core node. So we can say for sure that a non-zero number of the core 30 nodes were updated without the user even being aware of it, or even being aware of the controversy.

I can also say that I have not talked to a single person IRL who thinks blowing up a working filter was a good idea. Some of them would find increasing the limit to 150 or 250 bytes would have been arguably acceptable. But nobody thinks blowing it up to 1250x it's legacy size is a good thing.

And there is so much controversy that Tone Vale came back onto the bitcoin scene and made a series of interviews of both sides on YouTube. Several others also did.

But somehow you want to tell us this controversy is all fake and imagined? That Tone Vale, who is a core/spam supporter is manufacturing outrage over nothing at all?

Do you actually believe core calling spam "use cases we have today" and blowing up spam filters is not controversial at all? Seriously? Are you for real?

Man you are a special kind of stupid.

I get by on my looks.

Well according to the network map there are 2 nodes in El Salvador

GTFOH
Your source is liying to you. You are an absolute retard if you believe that.
There ate some miners in El Salvador. I run two nodes. One at my office and one at my home. And I'm pretty fucking sure the Bitcoin office runs a node too. Already we blow over your ridiculous #2 figure

Worse, they limit the tree depth to _7_, which makes that literally impossible to represent in bip110-coin.

You are the coretard who made this monstrocity. 99% of Taproot outputs are spam dust UTXOs.
Sorry, but not sorry. Your precious tool is fucking up the network. You can't play with those toys anymore. We'll make sure of it.

As far as I'm concerned, I would revert the entire network to pre-taproot.
Speedy trial my ass! Fucking useless spamware. That's all Taproot is.

[ABCbits]

What is the cost of having two branches? Of course 32 bytes, because we need to go one branch deeper in the TapScript. What is the cost of OP_IF, OP_ELSE, OP_0, and OP_ENDIF? Of course 4 bytes. Which means, that instead of using OP_IF, and pushing four bytes, we go one branch deeper, and use 32 bytes. Congratulations, BIP-110 forced us to push more bytes on-chain, than we otherwise would! Good job, keep going!

You are being obtuse. In the six months that the BIP110 there has been tons of spam/core defenders who tell us about those mythical monetary users of op_if in Taproot. But not a single person has come out and said "I'm using it, I need it, I don't want that feature gone."
So, in essence, other than spammers, nobody uses op_if in Taproot.

Lightning Network's HTLC rely on OP_IF[1]. PLTC (replacement of HTLC) is far from ready, so more LN wallet/client will use HTLC together with Taproot address. And in case it's not obvious, IF, ELSE and ENDIF are fundamental for programming/script.

[1] https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/multihop-payments/hash-time-lock-contract-htlc

99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs.

Do you have data to proof it or you assume based on ridiculous amount of Ordinal on Bitcoin blockchain?

[ertil]

And in case it's not obvious, IF, ELSE and ENDIF are fundamental for programming/script.

I think they should just disable the whole Script entirely. Then, they can start from a single public key, and nothing else. And then, they can start expanding it, case-by-case, when Luke will implement each use case individually. Only then users will know for sure, if they can use a given Script or not. Because otherwise, it is a guessing game, and you never know: today it is OP_IF, and tomorrow, it can be OP_DROP, or yet another thing, if they will figure out, that it can be also used for spamming.

Lightning Network's HTLC rely on OP_IF

Well, maybe they consider Lightning Network to be a spam as well? Who knows. Maybe they want to see all LN traffic to be pushed on-chain instead, and have hundreds of transactions, instead of two: one to open the channel, and one to close it.

As far as I'm concerned, I would revert the entire network to pre-taproot.

This is funny, because before Taproot, Luke's client forced it to activate. What happened in the meanwhile, that now you want to revert a change, which Luke wanted to push faster than planned?

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/there-are-now-two-taproot-activation-clients-heres-why

Bitcoin Core 0.21.0-based Taproot Client 0.1, for the remainder of this article simply referred to as “Bitcoin Taproot,” is the LOT=true client. Bitcoin Taproot is a software fork of Bitcoin Core 0.21.0, the last major Bitcoin Core release, but with BIP 8 LOT=true activation code added for Taproot. The project is maintained by the pseudonymous community members Bitcoin Mechanic and Shinobi, with Bitcoin Core developer and Bitcoin Knots lead maintainer Luke Dashjr as the project’s most notable and most experienced contributor.

Also, if you read what Luke said about Taproot, before it was activated, then you may be surprised. He wanted to deploy it ASAP, so why now you want to revert it?

I run two nodes. One at my office and one at my home.

If you don't accept incoming connections, then your node won't be visible on bitnodes. There are only nodes, which are directly reachable.

[DaveF]

If you don't accept incoming connections, then your node won't be visible on bitnodes. There are only nodes, which are directly reachable.

There you go assuming that his nodes exist anyplace except his imagination.

The doublethink he displays is truly impressive. "look at all our nodes" followed by "the places that show node counts are wrong"

Point out the behavior of the nodes seems wrong and he does not even counter it. Because, he can't. Not because there may be an explanation for it but because he has no knowledge of how nodes and BTC in general works.



Due to the way he responds when you show him actual proof with programming about what will happen he just calls people names I'm starting to think he has no idea at all of how things work in the BTC world. Not to mention the truly deranged belief that with no miner support and no exchange support anyone would follow that fork.

If any large exchange even made a statement that they may possibly follow the fork then there might be some support for it, same with miners. But at the 3 1/2 month +/- a few days out from it activating and none of them has even mentioned the possibility of support for it. Just a few that said they will not.

Figure we just have to keep pointing out facts and observations and keep him occupied here till he leaves or the fork happens in case some new user might believe him. After that he will hopefully go away. Lets face it at the moment there is no reason for that fork to exist outside of wanting to hurt BTC. I mean that could be it, luke had all his coins stolen and pepe has none so is it just lashing out at the world at this point?

Wondering if they will modify the lukecoin client to have a difficulty adjustment at the fork like BCH did. At that point anyone running a BTC client with just the 110 censoring changes would no longer be following that chain.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

Worse, they limit the tree depth to _7_, which makes that literally impossible to represent in bip110-coin.

Imagine you create a specific new kind of hammer. And imagine 99% of those who use this new hammer use it to break knees of random strangers. And we think it's possible that one person could actually be using this hammer to drive nails and build houses.

Obviously, this hammer needs to be taken off the market. We can't confiscate the hammers already sold, but we should stop selling it for sure as the negative uses far outweight to positive uses.

This is the situation we are in with Taproot users. 99% of which are creating spam dust outputs.
Now, you can complain all you want about the possibility that one person is actually using op_if in Taproot properly. But you are only guessing, you have no idea if anyone uses it properly.

And unlike my example of the hammer, we are not trying to completely removeTaproot. We only remove the use of op_if in Taproot. And only after activation time, and only for a year.

So keep bitching about how op_if in Taproot might actually get used properly. But we both know 99% (and possibly 100%) of the op_if in Taproot uses are spam.

Lightning Network's HTLC rely on OP_IF[1]. PLTC (replacement of HTLC) is far from ready, so more LN wallet/client will use HTLC together with Taproot address. And in case it's not obvious, IF, ELSE and ENDIF are fundamental for programming/script.

No idea what you are talking about here. But what I do know is that LN happened before Taproot. And so LN doesn't require Taproot anything to work properly.

Do you have data to proof it or you assume based on ridiculous amount of Ordinal on Bitcoin blockchain?

Jesus! Just go on Mempool.space, look for any random Taproot tx.
Better yet, show me a block with a lot of Taproot txs's on it from the last 24 hours and I'll break it down for you.

Due to the way he responds when you show him actual proof with programming about what will happen he just calls people names I'm starting to think he has no idea at all of how things work in the BTC world.

I've had discussions with people far more knowledgeable than me as well as with people far less knowledgeable than me in all sorts of areas.
Those more knowledgeable than me know to explain it in simple ways to make you understand their idea.
But many on the core side deliberately make things more complicated than they really are. So that the rest of you who have no idea what they are reading will say "See, he explained it to you and you reject his comprehensive explanation" even often admitting they themselves don't understand it.

All the while I'm supposed to just "trust the experts" without understanding anything. Or just accept that they are the technical ones and I'm not, therefore my point of view is invalid.

In reality, very very few people understand stuff like op_of and other op_codes.

But I know enough to know that nobody how uses op_if in Taproot for monetary transactions has protested BIP110 so far.
Though plenty of you are assuming these people exist, and they will keep on using it after the fork, completely unaware of the fork's existence. All the while pretending the fork is a hard fork, and it it's not temporary at all. So that if anyone keeps using op_if in Taproot after the fork, their funds will be lost forever.

[gmaxwell]

that argument is like saying that bitcoin should confiscate all outputs to addresses that begin with "1di" because 99.9% of existent outputs to that prefix are dust spam from a long gone money laundering site.... and ignoring that this would create a 1/3364 odds of destroying each person's bitcoin for each transaction that pays them.

Because crap like NFTs creates a lot of little payments anything it uses will be 'mostly' NFT crap. But so what?  The value of other things is *independent* of the noise-- your coins don't become less legitimate or valuable because some idiot used a script similar to yours.  NFT crap existed before taproot, and it would continue if taproot were gone-- it's not a product of it.  It's a product of market demand for scarce tokens in order to launder money and fleece idiots.  Changing how they have to use it won't discourage them or slow it at all, if it had any effect it would potentially make it *more* profitable for the responsible parties.

You don't have to agree with people using multisig or see any purpose in it... YOU DON'T GET TO JUST FUCKING ERASE THEIR BITCOINS NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE YOU SUMMON, but the excuses here are particularly pathetic and pointless.

the only spam relevant to this discussion is pepelapiu's constant flooding the forum with disinformation and delusion about a dead proposal gut bitcoin's functionality. dear god, make it stop.

[PepeLapiu]

that argument is like saying that bitcoin should confiscate all outputs to addresses that begin with "1di" because 99.9% of existent outputs to that prefix are dust spam from a long gone money laundering site.... and ignoring that this would create a 1/3364 odds of destroying each person's bitcoin for each transaction that pays them.

Strawmaning your opposition? It's not like you've never done this before.

The fact is that all the known cases of op_if in Taproot are spam. You can point to "possible cases" or "theoretical cases" but you can't actually point to anyone who actually have used op_if in Taproot, unless it's spam.

If they exist, the wallets and the users have almost a year of warning before the fork gets activated. And even so, it will only be for a year or so.

You know op_if in Taproot is used overwhelmingly by spammers. You know likely nobody uses it for actual monetary use. Which is why you only talk about theoretical cases, never actual cases.

You don't have to agree with people using multisig or see any purpose in it... YOU DON'T GET TO JUST FUCKING ERASE THEIR BITCOINS NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE YOU SUMMON, but the excuses here are particularly pathetic and pointless.

Nobody is erasing anyone's bitcoin.
Users and wallets have until August to put their ducks in a row and remove the op_if feature which is used only by spammers.
Should wallets and users ignore the warning and go ahead with the use of op_if in Taproot, they coin will be unspedable, but only until the temporary fork expires a year later.

the only spam relevant to this discussion is pepelapiu's constant flooding the forum with disinformation

Really? Aren't you one of those who's been proclaiming for the last 3 years the fees are the filter?
Because you know full well that ordinals get a 75% discount while monetary users get a 50% discount. In order words, spammers pay half as much as monetary users.
So who exactly are the fees filtering here, MrTruthTellerNeverTalksBullshitPaidBlocksteamMouthPiece?

If I was paying $1 in miner fees for a specific tx before Segwit, I now pay 50¢ with the Segwit discount. But the spammers pay 25¢ for the same size tx as me.

WHO IS GETTING FILTERED BY THE FEES HERE? WHO IS GETTING PROMOTED BY THE FEES HERE?

[ABCbits]

Lightning Network's HTLC rely on OP_IF[1]. PLTC (replacement of HTLC) is far from ready, so more LN wallet/client will use HTLC together with Taproot address. And in case it's not obvious, IF, ELSE and ENDIF are fundamental for programming/script.

No idea what you are talking about here. But what I do know is that LN happened before Taproot. And so LN doesn't require Taproot anything to work properly.

What does "work properly" mean? LN without Taproot have many disadvantage and issue, such as

1. Worse privacy.

One notable advantage is increased on-chain privacy; Taproot channel opening and closing now resemble regular single-sig Bitcoin transactions on-chain, rendering them virtually indistinguishable from standard transactions.

2. Bigger TX size.

Additionally, the integration of Schnorr signatures with Taproot enhances on-chain efficiency by enabling signature aggregation. This development ensures that on-chain cooperative operations become more space- and cost-efficient.

3. It would break Taproot Assets, NFT/token "protocol" on LN.

Taproot Assets relies on Taproot, bitcoin’s most recent upgrade, for a new tree structure that allows developers to embed arbitrary asset metadata within an existing output. It uses Schnorr signatures for improved simplicity and scalability, and, importantly, works with multi-hop transactions over Lightning.

4. It would break stores/services that already use LN with Taproot address.

For example, https://1ml.com/node/030c3f19d742ca294a55c00376b3b355c3c90d61c6b6b39554dbc7ac19b141c14f shows channel that connected to Bitrefill (probably most popular place to buy gift card/voucher that accept crypptocurrency). If you look at the TX of the channel, many of them have address with prefix bc1p which indicate Taproot address.

Do you have data to proof it or you assume based on ridiculous amount of Ordinal on Bitcoin blockchain?

Jesus! Just go on Mempool.space, look for any random Taproot tx.
Better yet, show me a block with a lot of Taproot txs's on it from the last 24 hours and I'll break it down for you.

Since you decided not to show the proof, i'll just share the data/analysis that i found. https://research.mempool.space/utxo-set-report/ analyze the UTXO on middle 2025.

The table on bottom of webpage says there are 59,262,426 UTXO P2TR/Taproot.

But table on middle of webpage says total inscription UTXO that use P2TR/Taproot is only 37,293,318. It's about 62.9%, so so your claim "99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs." is wrong.

[ertil]

that argument is like saying that bitcoin should confiscate all outputs to addresses that begin with "1di" because 99.9% of existent outputs to that prefix are dust spam from a long gone money laundering site.... and ignoring that this would create a 1/3364 odds of destroying each person's bitcoin for each transaction that pays them.

It happened in the past, and it can happen again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816578.0

If he could block "1dice" addresses in 2014, which just used a single public key, and a single signature, then he can do that again. And of course he wouldn't care, that it may block regular users accidentally.

Reaching a specific prefix is not that unlikely, for example:

My Casascius Coins website issued a payment address starting with"1Fake" and the customer did not know if he got a real or a test address. Suspicious, he redid his order and paid the new (non-1Fake) address he was issued, then wrote to tell me about it.  The 1Fake address was a real address and a genuine coincidence.

Which means, that if someone needs a lot of addresses (for example by running an exchange), then that person can accidentally hit something, which would be rejected as a "spam", and then it could hurt real users, once in a while.

[DaveF]

But table on middle of webpage says total inscription UTXO that use P2TR/Taproot is only 37,293,318. It's about 62.9%, so so your claim "99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs." is wrong.

Don't go confusing him with facts.

4. It would break stores/services that already use LN with Taproot address.

For example, https://1ml.com/node/030c3f19d742ca294a55c00376b3b355c3c90d61c6b6b39554dbc7ac19b141c14f shows channel that connected to Bitrefill (probably most popular place to buy gift card/voucher that accept crypptocurrency). If you look at the TX of the channel, many of them have address with prefix bc1p which indicate Taproot address.

It would also kill WalletOfSatoshi and just about every other LN thing out there that uses it.

....And of course he wouldn't care, that it may block regular users accidentally....

Reaching a specific prefix is not that unlikely, for example:

Luke has no problem stealing peoples hashrate to destroy things he does not agree with. Do you think blocking people really bothers him one way or another.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.0

Back then it was not a big deal but now luke is just out and out proposing taking peoples coins and destroying services like bitrefill as @ABCbits pointed out in the post above.


But as a bit of humor, someone pointed out to me that PepeLapiu skunk cartoon character was a stalker who sexually assaulted a female cat since he did not understand the work no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pep%C3%A9_Le_Pew   if you are going to create an internet personality of someone who does not understand that nobody is interested in his fork and does not take no for an answer and does not seem to understated that nobody wants him around then he did pick the perfect name. Lets not forget pepe had to flee Canada to El Salvador to start a BTC business. That as far as anyone can tell does not really exist. Or at least he has never shown proof that there really is on.


-Dave

[Dogedegen]

I was at a Bitcoin conference here in El Salvador. Everyone there hates core.

But you proclaim all of this is all fake? Bots and fake nodes?

Yes, it is not hard to fool a big group of people to believe something false. We've seen this happen to many individuals, many who were even seen as experts like Gavin Anderson who got tricked by the most basic method by Craig Wright. How many people supported Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV, both which were shitcoin scams designed to seize control over Bitcoin by those that were founders of such projects? It really had nothing to do with big blocks or scaling, that is a reason that you give the mass so that you can sell your takeover idea. Luke is doing the same now with OP_RETURN and some illegal content that nobody cares about, illegal content which is already everywhere on the internet and on every major blockchain.

Given your user name, it's prettycleatr you don't think all the spam and shitcoinery on bitcoin is really a problem. So it's no surprise that you also think it's all fake.

There is no problem, fees are very low and the transactions that you are against are legitimate Bitcoin transactions. You may not like them, but that does not change the fact that they are valid transactions that confirm to the rules.

I already explained thattakinfg bets won't do shit. Betting on your sports team doesn't increase their chance of winning. I'm putting my funds to work where it will help increase ourchancces of winning. Not wasting my fine and funds on stupid bets.

It is because you just talk big but you won't back it up, the same as most Knots people. A bet that is surely to be won and you believe would be won is not a stupid bet, it is the road to riches. So either you do not have money or you do not believe in the idea as much as you claim that you do.

What I do know is that one hardware company (Casa I think) has an option to auto update your core node. So we can say for sure that a non-zero number of the core 30 nodes were updated without the user even being aware of it, or even being aware of the controversy.

This represents a small number of nodes and is not so important even if you keep mentioning it. There may be private solutions that also have auto update, there may be scripts that people have that also auto updates their own nodes. That does not discount that they have updated. The time to update is meaningless as a metric as you can't derive the reasons for doing something based off of that, you do not have the information. I sometimes found myself that I have been running an older version of Core here and there for quite some time, not realizing that an update was available for quite long. Sometimes I was even multiple versions behind. It happens.

You don't have to agree with people using multisig or see any purpose in it... YOU DON'T GET TO JUST FUCKING ERASE THEIR BITCOINS NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE YOU SUMMON, but the excuses here are particularly pathetic and pointless.

This is the main key here and this reminds me of some posts that I have read not long ago from the early days, ideas of blacklisting Bitcoin based on some criteria and stuff like that. These are same ideas just using a different approach and different justifications. It does not matter what word we use, blacklist, seize, erase, they all represent the same thing. If we centralize Bitcoin this way and start doing it for one reason, it is never going to stop. There will always be new reasons, better reasons, better justifications to do it again for something else, and again and again. This is why we must never do it.

[PepeLapiu]

What does "work properly" mean? LN without Taproot have many disadvantage and issue,

I am of the opinion that the Taproot upgrade should be scrappedcompletelly as the spam is had brought in gar out weights the benefits of it.

Keep in mind, scrapping Taproot is my personal opinion, not at all what BIP110 does.
I thing Taproot should be thrown in the waste basket, if it's even doablle without a hard fork. And if we want to bring it back in, with changes and bug fixes to fix the mess tgatvTaproot has created. And while we are at it, we should do the same with Segwit.

I don't think Taproot and Segwit are of themselves bad things. They could be both great upgrades if core had not been busy ignoring the bugs and exploits and even going as far as pretending the bugs are benefits by changing the documentation.

such as

1. Worse privacy.

:eyeroll:

I don't believe LN makes use of op_if in Taproot. But if it dies, it certainly would not be a privacy increase. The whole point of spammers using op_if in Taproot is to reveal a bunch of data on chain. Because that's precisely what they want. And so using op_if in Taproot would not increase privacy at all.

One notable advantage is increased on-chain privacy; Taproot channel opening and closing now resemble regular single-sig Bitcoin transactions on-chain, rendering them virtually indistinguishable from standard transactions.

That doesn't require the use of op_if in Taproot.

2. Bigger TX size.

Additionally, the integration of Schnorr signatures with Taproot enhances on-chain efficiency by enabling signature aggregation. This development ensures that on-chain cooperative operations become more space- and cost-efficient.

Again, that doesn't require the use of op_if in Taproot.

3. It would break Taproot Assets, NFT/token "protocol" on LN.

Listen up, you fucking spam apologist. Neither bitcoin, not Segwit, nor Taproot, not LN were built to facilitate spam and your precious NFT scans.
I'm fucking sick of that stoopit idea we have to forever and ever create more and more ways tospanm bitcoin, all under the ridiculous excuse if we we don't create and protect more ways to spam, they will use worst ways to spam. That's pure horse shit.

The beauty of BIP110 is that it's temporary, onlyforb a year. So if it's shown totbreak anything seriously, we get to modify it or not bringbit back at all.

My bet is, LN won't die over it. LN existed before Taproot, and it will survive and thrive during and after BIP110

Since you decided not to show the proof, i'll just share the data/analysis that i found. https://research.mempool.space/utxo-set-report/ analyze the UTXO on middle 2025.

Interesting. My claim was that 99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs. And your link says this: "Currently half (49%) of all UTXOs contain less than 1000 sats (~$1). Most of these use taproot, and are likely related to data embedding schemes and/or the complementary transfer schemes utilising ordinal theory. (...)"

And I though the spammy dust UTXOs made up 40% of the UTXO set. They are however sating that all dust outputs (including non-spam) make up 49% of the UTXO set.

And they also claim: "We see that taproot (p2tr) is the most common UTXO type (at 34.2%), followed shortly by p2pkh (28.8%) & p2wpkh (26.5%). However in terms of the value stored in the UTXO's p2tr is hardly visible (0.75%)."

So they say Taproot UTXOs are the most popular at 34.3%, yet these UTXOs contain only 0.75% of the bitcoin value. Clearly, there's a shit ton of spam going on!!

But table on middle of webpage says total inscription UTXO that use P2TR/Taproot is only 37,293,318. It's about 62.9%, so so your claim "99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs." is wrong.

Actually, they claim here: "We find that the vast majority (86%) of p2tr UTXOs are sub-1000 sats in value."

They claim 86% and I claim 99%. Their numbers are lower than mine, but still it shows tha t 86% of Taproot outputs are notusesd as money for the most part. 86% of p2tr UTXOs are under 73¢ at current market value. Most of them actually under 30¢ value.

that argument is like saying that bitcoin should confiscate all outputs to addresses that begin with "1di" because 99.9% of existent outputs to that prefix are dust spam from a long gone money laundering site.... and ignoring that this would create a 1/3364 odds of destroying each person's bitcoin for each transaction that pays them.

It happened in the past, and it can happen again

Yeah right! Since we are looking at things that happened before and likely to happen again, why don't we look at what happened when BSV blew up their op_return filter?

Yup, you guessed it, BSV chain got filled with child porn almost overnight.
Luckily for them, reverting back was easy as they are a centralized shitcoin.

I'm of the belief that was a test run for a future attack on Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

such as

1. Worse privacy.

:eyeroll:

I don't believe LN makes use of op_if in Taproot. But if it dies, it certainly would not be a privacy increase. The whole point of spammers using op_if in Taproot is to reveal a bunch of data on chain. Because that's precisely what they want. And so using op_if in Taproot would not increase privacy at all.

One notable advantage is increased on-chain privacy; Taproot channel opening and closing now resemble regular single-sig Bitcoin transactions on-chain, rendering them virtually indistinguishable from standard transactions.

That doesn't require the use of op_if in Taproot.

2. Bigger TX size.

Additionally, the integration of Schnorr signatures with Taproot enhances on-chain efficiency by enabling signature aggregation. This development ensures that on-chain cooperative operations become more space- and cost-efficient.

Again, that doesn't require the use of op_if in Taproot.

I never say both require OP_IF in Taproot, i mentioned those since you claimed "LN doesn't require Taproot anything to work properly." which is different with OP_IF in Taproot.

3. It would break Taproot Assets, NFT/token "protocol" on LN.

Listen up, you fucking spam apologist. Neither bitcoin, not Segwit, nor Taproot, not LN were built to facilitate spam and your precious NFT scans.
I'm fucking sick of that stoopit idea we have to forever and ever create more and more ways tospanm bitcoin, all under the ridiculous excuse if we we don't create and protect more ways to spam, they will use worst ways to spam. That's pure horse shit.

1. Taproot Assets on LN isn't only for NFT/token that usually deemed as spam. For example, Tether will use it to integrate USDT.

San Salvador, El Salvador – 30th January 2025 – Tether, the largest company in the digital assets industry, announced the integration of USDt into Bitcoin’s ecosystem, including both its base layer and the Lightning Network. Supported by a new Taproot-powered protocol, Taproot Assets, and developed by Lightning Labs, this integration combines Bitcoin’s unmatched decentralization and security with the speed and scalability of the Lightning Network, redefining how stablecoins can function within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

2. In case you didn't know, most of the data stored isn't stored on-chain. AFAIK it's least harmful protocol choice for NFT/token.

Does Taproot Assets scale?

Taproot Assets minimizes its on-chain footprint by storing all necessary metadata off-chain. It further optimizes how UTXOs are used by allowing multiple assets to be controlled by the same output, and aggregate multiple transactions into a single UTXO. Taproot Assets on the Lightning Network vastly improves on the scalability of other on-chain or sharded off-chain protocols while allowing for the highest degree of self-sovereignty.

The beauty of BIP110 is that it's temporary, onlyforb a year. So if it's shown totbreak anything seriously, we get to modify it or not bringbit back at all.

There are other less extreme option, such as creating dedicated testnet/signet for BIP 110. Or do more detailed research for non-spam or monetary usege that could be broken by it.

My bet is, LN won't die over it. LN existed before Taproot, and it will survive and thrive during and after BIP110

Some LN software already use Taproot address for various reason, so the "thrive" part less likely to happen.

But table on middle of webpage says total inscription UTXO that use P2TR/Taproot is only 37,293,318. It's about 62.9%, so so your claim "99% of Taproot outputs are spammy dust UTXOs." is wrong.

Actually, they claim here: "We find that the vast majority (86%) of p2tr UTXOs are sub-1000 sats in value."

They claim 86% and I claim 99%. Their numbers are lower than mine, but still it shows tha t 86% of Taproot outputs are notusesd as money for the most part. 86% of p2tr UTXOs are under 73¢ at current market value. Most of them actually under 30¢ value.

Dust doesn't always equal spam. For example, there's possibility it's UTXO created when Bitcoin or LN wallet (that support Taproot address) send leftover tothe  change address. That's why i use total ordinal/inscription that use P2TR UTXO. But it doesn't change the fact 62.9% or 86% is very far from 99%.

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

[BLOCK OF TEXT REMOVED]
But it doesn't change the fact 62.9% or 86% is very far from 99%.

He also cannot figure out that no pools signaling for support except for ocean is a smaller number then the amount needed to mine blocks after the fork.

I started poking around and testing things. And with a bit of proxy work you can have 1 "real" node and then just put proxy software on a bunch of other machines and have them talk back to the 1 "real" node and all of a sudden you have things that look like a node to bitnodes and coin.dance but are really just passing data back to 1 machine.
Going to sleep now. But at least I know how they faked so much support. Will try to duplicate it when I have more time. Not sure if what I did in a few hours would be stable long term but for a quick test it worked.

-Dave

You are overthinking it. It's also why so many knots nodes are are TOR. All you have to do is add some lines of text into your TOR config and you can have multiple onion addresses going back to 1 knots node.

For real IP all you need is NGINX Stream. They made it easy to spot, look at bitnodes. Do a bit of digging. Look at some of the IPs and servers and hosted services that some of those nodes are on. Some hosts that are shown do not have VPS or bare metal servers. But they do allow for the NGINX Stream and that is all you need.

But I will agree with whoever posted someplace about him leaving Canada. Ran away because he could not make it here.

[PepeLapiu]

He also cannot figure out that no pools signaling for support except for ocean is a smaller number then the amount needed to mine blocks after the fork.

Firstly, Ocean doesn't have the ability to force their individual miners tofl signal for or against BIP110. You can even be a miner with Ocean and run core 30 if you want. All that Ocean does is manage and distribute the pay-outs to miners.

Secondly, miners have a role in the network, but their role is not to decide and enforce the rules. That's the nodes job.

Presently, mining is EXTREMELY centralized with less than a handful of players deciding what goes into a block. If you want to believe those 5 pools should be deciding on the rules of the network, than I don't really want to be a bitcoiner anymore.

What you are saying is that the centralized pools and the centralized KYC exchanges own and control the network. You are basically claiming bitcoin is an oligarchy. And I want no part of such a system.

You are overthinking it. It's also why so many knots nodes are are TOR. All you have to do is add some lines of text into your TOR config and you can have multiple onion addresses going back to 1 knots node.

I'm amused at the idea that core can reject spam filters, blow up and existing filter, and declare that spam is "uses cases we have today" while you actually believe alltheose who object to this are all fake X accounts, bots, and fake nodes.

But I will agree with whoever posted someplace about him leaving Canada. Ran away because he could not make it here.

So you are criticizing me for leaving Canada and moving to Bitcoin country? Unbelievable!

[Dogedegen]

Secondly, miners have a role in the network, but their role is not to decide and enforce the rules. That's the nodes job.

Nodes decide and enforce the rules, really? So if I spin up 100k nodes and have a grand majority, that means that I can decide the next steps of Bitcoin? That does not sound accurate. Enforce sure, decide only partially in this difficult to formulate process of consensus that we have here going on.

Presently, mining is EXTREMELY centralized with less than a handful of players deciding what goes into a block. If you want to believe those 5 pools should be deciding on the rules of the network, than I don't really want to be a bitcoiner anymore.

So instead of 5 large pools deciding the rules of the network, it should be centralized down to a single tiny pool instead? That is what you consider better?

I'm amused at the idea that core can reject spam filters, blow up and existing filter, and declare that spam is "uses cases we have today" while you actually believe alltheose who object to this are all fake X accounts, bots, and fake nodes.

I have already explained that even if some of the people who believe those things are real that does not mean anything. Many people have been fooled by Roger Ver and Craig Wright in the past in another subject relating to the block size, and this time it is not any different. The truth was clear then and the truth in the current situation is also clear. If you choose the wrong side, the one that is based on lies and misinformation that does not make your case true. You should review the decisions you made instead.

You are overthinking it. It's also why so many knots nodes are are TOR. All you have to do is add some lines of text into your TOR config and you can have multiple onion addresses going back to 1 knots node.

For real IP all you need is NGINX Stream. They made it easy to spot, look at bitnodes. Do a bit of digging. Look at some of the IPs and servers and hosted services that some of those nodes are on. Some hosts that are shown do not have VPS or bare metal servers. But they do allow for the NGINX Stream and that is all you need.

I didn't know that, but if I am correct we can't be sure from the outside how many are fake and how many are real TOR nodes? Like if there were 1000 nodes running Knots on TOR, we can't say for certain how many real nodes they are? Probably if we could the data would be really bad..