Gloria Zhao got hacked?

[Wind_FURY]

NO. People were putting down Luke Dash Jr.'s SOLUTION to those transactions that they don't like, NOT putting him down because he got his coins stolen.Get back to the REAL issue and stop all the name-calling and finger-pointing. Because if you believe Knots is the solution to "stop spam", you're definitely wrong.

--Snip--

It's laughable that there are people believe that something unstoppable could be stopped by acting like a small network/intranet administrator is a good solution - Which was my post's main point.

Plus they use the argument "because governance" to make it look sort of a "good solution". IT'S NOT.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[PepeLapiu]

You seem to still have trouble with his name.  :-)

If you still can't figure out who I am talking about, go get your crayons and construction paper, and I will slowly explain it to you.

Anyway, one person's "spam" is someone else's transaction.

That is false, what spam is on bitcoin is not up to me or my feelings.

The issue with defining all non-monetary data as spam (as was proposed on the dev list) is that it eliminates functionality Bitcoin has relied on since inception.

You either copied someone else's response on the email list, or you are that person re-using the argument here.

You are not aware of my reply to it as it keeps getting censored on the email list. So I will explain it here again.

By definition, if the data is required for bitcoin to function as money, it is monetary data, and not non-monetary data, and not spam. The idea that span and non-monetary data is required for bitcoin to work as money is non-sense.

Furthermore, the Cat BIP does not address all non-monetary data. The Cat only addresses proven spam like jpegs and spam UTXOs under 1000 sats. Things like op_return data and coinbase miner data are left unchanged.

Bitcoin was designed from v0.1 as a distributed timestamp server and ordering system, not solely as a payment processor. The genesis block contains non-monetary data, and early Proof-of-Existence uses pre-dated OP_RETURN.

Neither op_return nor proof-of-existance are needed or helpful for bitcoin to work as money. And neither op_return nor proof-of-existance are addressed or affected by the Cat.

Time-locked contracts (nLockTime) have existed since v0.1 and underpin CLTV/CSV-based constructions, including the Lightning Network, DLCs, and off-chain adjudication. Sidechain anchoring and systems like OpenTimestamps depend on Bitcoin’s immutability as a distributed order of events. Protocol upgrades themselves rely on non-monetary signaling via version bits and miner flags.

None of those you listed above are addressed or affected by the Cat. Please stop spinning your wheel over nothing at all.

As stated in the whitepaper, the proof-of-work chain is a solution to distributed timestamping and majority decision-making. Monetary transactions depend on this ordering. If all non-monetary data is defined as spam, Bitcoin cannot function as Bitcoin. The opcodes in v0.1 clearly show that it was intended to do more than "Send X from A->B"-and they weren't disabled due to philosophical opposition, but DOS, consensus etc concerns.  Please note, this does not imply that bulk data storage belongs on L1, merely that "spam is easy to define as anything non-monetary" isn't as easy as one might think.

You are repeating the bullshit either you or someone else wrote on the email list.

None of the things you list here are affected by the Cat BIP. So you bringing them up us just a waste of time and energy.

Nobody is claiming that all non-monetary data is spam.

If a set of data is required for bitcoin to work as money, it is by definition monetary data, not spam.

And none of the stuff you listed is affected by the Cat BIP. And all data required for bitcoin to work as money is preserved with BIP110.

NO. People were putting down Luke Dash Jr.'s SOLUTION to those transactions that they don't like, NOT putting him down because he got his coins stolen.

Now you are just being dumb by reducing the definition of spam as "just transactions I don't like". It's absurd reductionism.

Bitcoin is money, period. If your transactions is not money, if it's obfuscating bullshit spam jpegs or BRC tokens or stamps, or whatever other bullshit in fake pubkey, fake scripthash, fake witness data, and shirting the dust limit, your transaction is not money, it's spam.

Your bullshit " interesting use cases" are not welcomed on bitcoin. And Satoshi just happened to agree with me when an other "use case" other than money was pushed on bitcoin:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

So, as you see, those are not only "transactions I don't like", they are also transactions Satoshi didn't like.

Because if you believe Knots is the solution to "stop spam", you're definitely wrong.

Knots, BIP110, the Cat, and the Lynx are all steps in the right direction. If they are not enough, we will keep working until your stupid spam is out of bitcoin and you are sent back to your bullshit shitcoins.

[DeeppRockk]

You can't compare a pool operator choosing transactions for *their* block template to some 'intranet administrator'. One is a voluntary, competitive process; the other is a monopoly. If a mining pool, say F2Pool, decides to censor transactions, they're just giving up fee revenue that another pool will gladly take.

From a protocol perspective, it's a non-issue. The network is an open, adversarial environment, and anyone who cries about this can cry a bit more.

My node checks if your transaction is valid, period. If it's valid, it'll sit in the mempool until it's profitable for a miner to include it.

If some miners choose to ignore it, all that means is you might wait a bit longer or your fee goes to a different miner.

The system works as designed. Anyone who thinks a few powerful entities can 'stop' it has a fundamental misunderstanding of decentralized consensus. My node would reject their block if it violated the rules anyway.
That's the only line that matters.

NO. People were putting down Luke Dash Jr.'s SOLUTION to those transactions that they don't like, NOT putting him down because he got his coins stolen.Get back to the REAL issue and stop all the name-calling and finger-pointing. Because if you believe Knots is the solution to "stop spam", you're definitely wrong.

--Snip--

It's laughable that there are people believe that something unstoppable could be stopped by acting like a small network/intranet administrator is a good solution - Which was my post's main point.

Plus they use the argument "because governance" to make it look sort of a "good solution". IT'S NOT.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[NotATether]

The prior discussion wasn't claiming that luke was untrustworthy because he got hacked, but rather: Luke's personal and data center computers were thoroughly compromised for months without his knoweldge and then after he learned of it he did not replace them or even wipe them, he just manually attempted to 'unhack' them, and continued to use the same computers to distribute software to others (with just a little note displayed to check signatures on the software they distributed because the system hadn't been replaced).

Exactly.

Luke's hack was much more serious than Gloria's. Because pretty much all of his hardware was compromised, and not only that, but the attackers also somehow found cryptocurrency on his hardware and looted it. Whereas in her case it's just an X account, which doesn't really do much.

In any way, the Bitcoin development cycle is designed so that no one person has god control, to mitigate situations like this.

[PepeLapiu]

It's laughable that there are people believe that something unstoppable could be stopped

It's laughable that the coretards are unable to describe what spam is and resort to rename it "use cases we have today" instead of addressing it as the spam, the grift, and the attack that it is.

It's laughable that you would suggest we can't stop it, therefore we might as well remove the spam filters that are already present and working.

The op_return filter kept 99.9% of the op_return under 83 bytes. But they somehow claimed it's not working? And they had to blow up the filter for citrea to do what they said the filter was not stopping them to do?

Think about it for a second. If the filter was not working, why did citrea need the filter blown up to use op_return? You have to ask yourself why they are gaslighting you like that.

Had core provided a filter for their nodes when the first ordinal appeared, 95% of the nodes today would be filtering that shit out of the network.

[headingnorth]

With someone like Zhao in power Bitcoin has become a total joke by now.
Even more of a joke than Dogecoin was meant to be LMAO.

This Zhao idiot goes against everything Satoshi ever stood for.  
Not surprising to see why the Bitcoin price has been tanking for months.

Bitcoin has lost all credibility and slowly turning into a memecoin.  

[fikrett]

With someone like Zhao in power Bitcoin has become a total joke by now.
Even more of a joke than Dogecoin was meant to be LMAO.

This Zhao idiot goes against everything Satoshi ever stood for.  
Not surprising to see why the Bitcoin price has been tanking for months.

Bitcoin has lost all credibility and slowly turning into a memecoin.  

Sounds just like another FUD post from a KOLer on X, but sure, believe in what you think is right

[lornadane]

So many of you shitcoiners who are unable to determine what spam is, you were putting down Knots because, so you said, Luke Dashjr got hacked, and this shows he has poor practices and should not be trusted with node software.

Now, I though that was a pretty dumb thing to say. But never the less, since the lead maintainer of core also just got hacked, does that prove core can't be trusted? Or does the stupid yardstick only apply when in service of spam?

Nah. Getting hacked means your software is trash. Personal opsec failures don’t magically invalidate years of peer-reviewed code and reproducible builds. If that yardstick only comes out for Knots but disappears for Core, that’s not principle, that’s cope in defense of spam.

[PepeLapiu]

With someone like Zhao in power Bitcoin has become a total joke by now.
Even more of a joke than Dogecoin was meant to be LMAO.

This Zhao idiot goes against everything Satoshi ever stood for.  
Not surprising to see why the Bitcoin price has been tanking for months.

Bitcoin has lost all credibility and slowly turning into a memecoin.  

I think we would be a bit blind to blame it all on Zhao and tell ourselves the core cancer is gone along with her.

Everyone who claimed they don't know what spam is, everyone who promoted and defended blowing up a spam filter, everyone who put Zhao in place, they all should be tarred, feathered, and walked out of town.

[headingnorth]

With someone like Zhao in power Bitcoin has become a total joke by now.
Even more of a joke than Dogecoin was meant to be LMAO.

This Zhao idiot goes against everything Satoshi ever stood for.  
Not surprising to see why the Bitcoin price has been tanking for months.

Bitcoin has lost all credibility and slowly turning into a memecoin.  

I think we would be a bit blind to blame it all on Zhao and tell ourselves the core cancer is gone along with her.

Everyone who claimed they don't know what spam is, everyone who promoted and defended blowing up a spam filter, everyone who put Zhao in place, they all should be tarred, feathered, and walked out of town.

Obviously Zhao isn't the only one responsible for bitcoin's problems. But her being in such a position of power would not be possible
without the support of the entire core team, or at least the majority of them. They have been compromised.

The damage could take years to recover from and may never be undone. Bitcoin's so-called decentralization has been exposed as a sham. 

[nutildah]

Obviously Zhao isn't the only one responsible for bitcoin's problems.

"Problems." What's the problem? The price skyrocketed to bounds very few thought imaginable, and fees are now regularly 1-2 sat/byte. The biggest risk is loss of independent node runners that find it too costly to carry on. However, this has yet to actually be a problem as the total number of nodes on the network keeps growing, reaching 25k for the first time just recently.

There are only existential threats that have little to no means of manifesting; yet these threats are powerful talking points among those looking to gain influence through manipulating the fears of more easily-influenced Bitcoiners.

The damage could take years to recover from and may never be undone. Bitcoin's so-called decentralization has been exposed as a sham. 

Lol, "damage." The Bitcoin Network did exactly what it was supposed to do and currently handles it like a champ. Decentralization isn't digital but analog: there are only varying degrees of centralization and decentralization. Bitcoin remains the closest gold standard we have to what that word actually entails.

[PepeLapiu]

Bitcoin's so-called decentralization has been exposed as a sham.  

I agree. The only part of bitcoin that is still decentralized is the nodes. And nodes are being attacked.

The big miners appear to be building a cartel with services like LibreRelay and SlipStream which are expressly built to cater to spam and bypass the nodes.

And instead of recognizing it as a problem, core claims we have to align the nodes mempool to what miners put in their blocks.

That's like saying the cop should adjust he speed gun to the speed of the cars to decrease speeding tickets.

[headingnorth]

Bitcoin's so-called decentralization has been exposed as a sham.  

I agree. The only part of bitcoin that is still decentralized is the nodes. And nodes are being attacked.

The big miners appear to be building a cartel with services like LibreRelay and SlipStream which are expressly built to cater to spam and bypass the nodes.

And instead of recognizing it as a problem, core claims we have to align the nodes mempool to what miners put in their blocks.

That's like saying the cop should adjust he speed gun to the speed of the cars to decrease speeding tickets.

I think most governments of the world have recognized these problems with bitcoin, and very few are willing to expose themselves to such risk
(ie: by making it a national reserve asset). They realize that Bitcoin has substantial counterparty risk and control is concentrated with miners and developers.
So it is not a very neutral nor decentralized asset as people claim it to be.

I would also question the decentralization of the nodes. How do we know that every node on the network is owned by an independent person or entity?
How do we know that Blackrock or some other large single entity doesn't own or control hundreds of nodes? Bitcoin is asking us to simply assume that each node is
independent but AFAIK there is no way to verify if that is even true, since the nodes are all anonymous. That is a serious flaw.

So much for the famous bitcoin motto DON'T TRUST VERIFY.

[PepeLapiu]

I think most governments of the world have recognized these problems with bitcoin, and very few are willing to expose themselves to such risk
(ie: by making it a national reserve asset). They realize that Bitcoin has substantial counterparty risk and control is concentrated with miners and developers.
So it is not a very neutral nor decentralized asset as people claim it to be.

I would also question the decentralization of the nodes. How do we know that every node on the network is owned by an independent person or entity?
How do we know that Blackrock or some other large single entity doesn't own or control hundreds of nodes? Bitcoin is asking us to simply assume that each node is
independent but AFAIK there is no way to verify if that is even true, since the nodes are all anonymous. That is a serious flaw.

So much for the famous bitcoin motto DON'T TRUST VERIFY.

You've been taking too many black pills, my friend.

BlackRock, or you, or me spinning up 1000 nodes on AWS is not relevent and a waste of time and money.

I suggest you listen to this for a minute. And re-listen until you fully comprehend what Mechanic is really saying between the lines:

https://youtu.be/-a-GwIZmoOM

Bitcoin is not controlled by core or the big mining pools. Bitcoin belongs to the nodes and it's controlled by the nodes who enforce the rules (both consensus and policy).

Core and the miners are mere employees of the network. They work for the nodes.

The problem is that the nodes have been too compliant and relying too much on core's unwillingness to fight spam by providing the nodes with the ability to filter what they don't want to put in their mempool and relay to others.

A small intolerant faction of the nodes is all it takes to turn this ship around.

[headingnorth]

I think most governments of the world have recognized these problems with bitcoin, and very few are willing to expose themselves to such risk
(ie: by making it a national reserve asset). They realize that Bitcoin has substantial counterparty risk and control is concentrated with miners and developers.
So it is not a very neutral nor decentralized asset as people claim it to be.

I would also question the decentralization of the nodes. How do we know that every node on the network is owned by an independent person or entity?
How do we know that Blackrock or some other large single entity doesn't own or control hundreds of nodes? Bitcoin is asking us to simply assume that each node is
independent but AFAIK there is no way to verify if that is even true, since the nodes are all anonymous. That is a serious flaw.

So much for the famous bitcoin motto DON'T TRUST VERIFY.

You've been taking too many black pills, my friend.

BlackRock, or you, or me spinning up 1000 nodes on AWS is not relevent and a waste of time and money.

Am I just supposed to take your word for it that the nodes are independent? What happened to "Don't trust, verify?"
Again you make assumptions without evidence (that shows the nodes are truly independent).
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But I'm not going to assume it or just take someone's word for it one way or the other.

1- Bitcoin is not controlled by core or the big mining pools. Bitcoin belongs to the nodes and it's controlled by the nodes who enforce the rules (both consensus and policy).

2 - Core and the miners are mere employees of the network. They work for the nodes.

3 - The problem is that the nodes have been too compliant and relying too much on core's unwillingness to fight spam by providing the nodes with the ability to filter what they don't want to put in their mempool and relay to others.

1 and 2 (if true) is cancelled out by 3. Having power but failing to exercise it is not any better than having no power at all.

[PepeLapiu]

1 and 2 (if true) is cancelled out by 3. Having power but failing to exercise it is not any better than having no power at all.

I agree. And I also think most nodes were not aware of the core problem until a year ago. Hopefully, enough of them are waking up and taking action with BIP110 and Knots.

[Wind_FURY]

NO. People were putting down Luke Dash Jr.'s SOLUTION to those transactions that they don't like, NOT putting him down because he got his coins stolen.

Now you are just being dumb by reducing the definition of spam as "just transactions I don't like". It's absurd reductionism.

Bitcoin is money, period. If your transactions is not money, if it's obfuscating bullshit spam jpegs or BRC tokens or stamps, or whatever other bullshit in fake pubkey, fake scripthash, fake witness data, and shirting the dust limit, your transaction is not money, it's spam.

Your bullshit " interesting use cases" are not welcomed on bitcoin. And Satoshi just happened to agree with me when an other "use case" other than money was pushed on bitcoin:

Ser, read the bolded sentences. You merely made your debate, my debate, and made my previous debate make the actual point.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[PepeLapiu]

Ser, read the bolded sentences. You merely made your debate, my debate, and made my previous debate make the actual point.

Bitcoin's only supported and sanctionned use case was always money. Read the white paper title.

You can not use fake pubkeys to store a jpeg and claim it's a supported use case.

You can not use fake scripthash to store a jpeg and claim it's a supported use case.j

Segwit stands for Segregated Witness. It does not stand for Segregated Jpeg.

Every spammer knows that the only supported use case is money. That's why they work so hard to make their spam look like a legit monetary transaction with fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, fake witness, and barely enough sats to skirt the dust limit.

[Wind_FURY]

Ser, read the bolded sentences. You merely made your debate, my debate, and made my previous debate make the actual point.

Bitcoin's only supported and sanction use case was always money. Read the white paper title.

"Sanction".

Laughable.

 

If your idea of Bitcoin is for the network to censor transactions that didn't break any consensus rule, then you probably run your network with a centralized database that the filterbois control.

[PepeLapiu]

"Sanction".

Laughable.

Typo fixed.

If your idea of Bitcoin is for the network to censor transactions that didn't break any consensus rule, then you probably run your network with a centralized database that the filterbois control.

If you try to repurpose bitcoin for anything other than money, we will viciously attack you.
If you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, or fake witness, we will viciously attack you.
That is my promise to you.